Amendment Text: H.Amdt.1139 — 109th Congress (2005-2006)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (06/28/2006)

This Amendment appears on page H4731 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H4724-H4743]
                     amendment offered by mr. flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to fund the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism 
     Development Association.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from 
being used for the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development 
Association, which receives a $1 million earmark in this bill.
  The Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association was 
created in 1987 to promote, expand, develop and market the existing and 
potential tourism industry in southern and eastern Kentucky.
  According to our research, since 1987, the Southern and Eastern 
Kentucky Tourism Development Association has received more than $18 
million in Federal grants, loans, and earmarks. In fact, last year, in 
the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, Justice and Commerce appropriation 
bill, the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Development Association 
received a $3 million earmark.
  Now I love traveling, as everyone here does; and I am all for seeing 
Kentucky tourism continue to grow. But again, here, how do we justify 
favoring this tourism association and not others?
  We have one in Arizona. Virtually every State has one. Many regions 
in our State have their own tourism associations. How do we decide that 
one is worthy of earmarks and another one is not?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I 
yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me time.
  This association, as the gentleman said, was formed in 1987, this 
association of 42 of Kentucky's counties covering five out of the six 
congressional districts.
  What sets these counties apart, however, is their extreme poverty. 
These are rural counties in an impoverished coal mining region of the 
State who have seen the jobs in the mines disappear through 
mechanization and otherwise; and these counties are searching for a way 
to live, to survive. They are too poor to do it on their own, to form 
an association to try to create tourism, train people, create the small 
jobs that it takes to run tourism entrepreneurships. So they banded 
together, 42 of them, into an association where they pool their 
resources.
  The State of Kentucky helps fund this association, as well as the 
Federal Government and locals. But for this association, these counties 
would not be able to advertise and attract to the very, very beautiful 
part of the country, the mountains, the streams and the hills, the 
history. It is the home of country music. US 23 that runs north and 
south through eastern Kentucky is known as Country Music Highway, a 
National Scenic Byway now, thanks to this association.
  They are the ones that promoted that National Scenic Byway. There are 
two others, the Red River Gorge Scenic Byway, National Scenic Byway, 
and the Daniel Boone Trail. The Cumberland Gap is a part of this area.

                              {time}  1515

  So this association works to promote the region. It is providing jobs 
to those who otherwise would be drawing Federal handouts, Federal 
welfare. We are trying to work to get people a job rather than take a 
check from the Federal Government. I look upon this as not a handout 
but a hand up, and these communities are now beginning to realize 
income that provides real jobs for people that would otherwise be 
drawing welfare.
  Now, is it unique that we would look to the Federal Government to 
help a region help itself grow into something better and provide the 
jobs? No, it is not unique. I would support today the earmarks over the 
years for the central

[[Page H4725]]

Arizona water project that enabled Arizona to grow and prosper and boom 
as it is now and providing jobs for people. That is what the Federal 
Government should be doing, and I do not begrudge a minute the 
gentleman from Arizona and the boom that is occurring in Arizona, but 
it was caused because the Federal Government over the years earmarked 
hundreds of millions of dollars to provide water out of the Colorado 
River so that Arizona in the desert would bloom.
  It is a good thing. I would support that and continue to do so, but I 
would hope the gentleman would realize there are other parts of the 
country with much much smaller needs but equally as important to the 
people that live there.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will turn down the amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Arizona.
  I was sitting in my office watching all these wonderful and 
heartrending speeches from folks about their economies and iron mills 
shutting down, steel mills shutting down, industries being totally 
lost, and now it is up to this Congress to pass through earmark 
appropriations in some legislative vehicles that are not the 
appropriate vehicle for it, which is why it is so hard for my friend 
from Arizona to find out where this money is going and why it is going 
and who asked for it.
  But I am reminded from time to time that this was the same Congress 
that has passed regulation that has prohibited us in the west, in 
Idaho, from harvesting trees, from mining minerals, from, in fact, 
earning a living or even building, as my good friend from Kentucky just 
said, in talking about building a whole new industry.
  Well, we would like that opportunity, too. In fact, we would like 
this Congress just to keep their promises to us when they shut down our 
forests and shut down the mining and halted much of the grazing on that 
land in Idaho and said, we will do this, we will make you PILT 
payments, payment in lieu of taxes. Because you have so much Federal 
ground in Idaho, a lot of that property does not render any taxes, and 
so we will make that payment for you. Well, you are about $148 million 
short this year alone.
  So I would say to these Members of Congress that have such huge 
hearts for their own particular little locales and their own particular 
little projects, that if you are going to do this, for gosh sakes, let 
those of us that would like to do it without all your help help 
ourselves.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me simply make the point, I was not around when the central 
Arizona project or other water projects in Arizona were approved, but I 
do know this: Nobody slipped funding for the central Arizona project in 
an appropriations bill at the last minute in a conference report. These 
programs were authorized. There were appropriations. There has been 
oversight. It is the antithesis of what we are doing here in this bill 
and in this process this year.
  We need to get back to the process of authorization and appropriation 
and oversight. We seem to have abandoned the outer two bookends, and 
all we are doing is appropriating, as I would submit, when you have 
descriptions this vague and you have situations where Members do not 
even come to the floor to defend it, and we still do not know on one of 
these that I offered today who the author is. On what I offered last 
week on two of the earmarks, we still do not know who offered them, but 
yet we pretend we are offering good oversight? We are really not. We 
can do a lot better than this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Cardoza

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

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. For ``Office of Justice Programs--justice 
     assistance'' for the Drug Endangered Children grant program, 
     as authorized by section 755 of the USA PATRIOT Improvement 
     and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177), and the 
     amounts otherwise provided by this Act for ``Other--salaries 
     and expenses, departmental mangagement'' (reduced by 
     $5,000,000) are hereby reduced by $5,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to start and begin by thanking Chairman Wolf and the 
ranking member, Mr. Mollohan, for working with me on this amendment. I 
also want to thank Mr. Larsen of Washington and Ms. Hooley for offering 
this amendment with me today and for all of their hard work addressing 
the methamphetamine problem and its effect on children.
  I rise today to introduce this amendment to provide $5 million in 
authorized funding for the Drug Endangered Children Program. This 
program would provide grants to States for initiatives that help 
children move from homes in which drug abuse or production takes place 
and, instead, into safe, permanent homes.
  Funding the Drug Endangered Children Program would represent an 
important step towards helping develop new protocols for law 
enforcement and child welfare workers to address the special needs of 
these children displaced by family methamphetamine use, which is a 
growing problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to quickly tell you a story about a 12-year-old 
boy that recently came to see me here in the Capitol. He is from 
Stockton, California, in my district. His father was arrested for 
running a meth lab in their home garage, and his mom, a meth addict, 
abandoned him and his two brothers. In fact, she left them at a phone 
booth in the community of Stockton, told them that she would be back, 
and 2 days later, this young, 12-year-old boy took his two brothers to 
a local police station and turned themselves in to the police so that 
they could get food and get out of the cold climate that they were in 
for 2 days.
  The system was unable to handle this situation. As a result, he was 
separated from his two brothers, his only remaining links to his family 
that he once loved.
  He came to see me last year, and he sat in the cafeteria below this 
Chamber, and he leaned over to me, and he whispered, Congressman, I 
have had so much pain in my life.
  We can do better and we must do better to help these young children. 
By working with the chairman and his staff, we have reduced the dollar 
amount in the bill so that this amendment no longer affects the Census 
Bureau.
  Mr. Chairman, this program will make a real difference in the lives 
of children affected by meth and other drugs. I urge a ``yes'' vote on 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
California for offering this important amendment.
  The most tragic victims of the meth epidemic are the drug-endangered 
children. A recent study in Oregon revealed that police find children 
living on the premises of one out of every four meth laboratories that 
they break up. These children are exposed to toxic chemicals on a daily 
basis and face the constant threat of physical, mental and emotional 
abuse from the nonstop flow of addicts through their home.
  The Drug Endangered Children Program provides vital services for 
these children, ensuring that law enforcement, child protective 
services, prosecutors and health professionals all work together to get 
them the help that they need.

[[Page H4726]]

  From removing and supporting these children as they transition out of 
these dangerous environments to ensuring that they get medical 
evaluations, mental health screenings, drug and chemical exposure 
screenings and addiction treatment, the Drug Endangered Children 
Program gives children a safe and drug-free environment to live in.
  That is why we introduced this legislation. I hope that my colleagues 
will see fit to appropriate the $5 million for this appropriate 
initiative.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for accepting 
the amendment. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment to provide $5 million for the Drug Endangered Children 
Program.
  I want to thank Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan for their 
work to increase funding for many law enforcement programs and the 
fight against methamphetamine. I am particularly encouraged by the $99 
million allocated for the Meth Hot Spots Account in this appropriations 
bill.
  I respect the tough job our appropriators have in writing these 
spending bills. They have admirably allocated dollars to programs that 
help our law enforcement do their job. However, one authorized program 
that was not fortunate to receive dollars in this bill is the Drug 
Endangered Children Program.
  Children are too often the silent victims of drug abuse. As a cochair 
of the House Meth Caucus, I have talked to many social service workers 
and treatment providers about the risks that drug-endangered children 
face. I have heard repeated stories of meth users leaving their 
children unattended for days as they cook and use methamphetamine and 
sleep off its intense effects.
  We have often talked about the need for more money to help local law 
enforcement to bust the bad guys, but we rarely talk about the impact 
those busts have on the kids who may be living in drug-infested homes.
  So I want to thank the gentleman from California for his work on this 
amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I want to thank the chairman 
for accepting this amendment as well.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank the 
chairman for working with me on this and appreciate his accepting the 
amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Chocola

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Chocola:
       Page 110, after line 8, insert the following new title:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     for travel policies and practices in contravention of Office 
     of Management and Budget Circular No. A-126.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think one of the greatest luxuries in life would be 
to own your own airplane. In fact, I think maybe one of the greater 
luxuries would be to have somebody else own the airplane and let you 
fly on it whenever you want and they pay the bill.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, that is pretty much the arrangement that the 
senior management at the National Aeronautics Space Administration, 
better known as NASA, has. A recent GAO reports that, over a 2-year 
period, NASA employees took 1,188 flights on private jets at a cost of 
$25 million or five times the cost of commercial tickets.
  I understand that at times NASA has appropriate uses for private 
jets, like when they do aeronautical research, but I do not think it is 
appropriate for routine visits, meetings, conferences and speeches. The 
GAO found that 86 percent of the trips taken on these private jets 
specifically are prohibited by Federal policy regarding aircraft 
ownership.
  Mr. Chairman, that is 1,022 trips on private jets by NASA employees 
that are specifically prohibited and paid for by the American 
taxpayers.
  Because NASA has been largely unresponsive to previous GAO 
recommendations to remedy this situation, the GAO has actually asked 
for congressional consideration of legislation to restrict NASA's 
ownership of passenger aircraft and funding for passenger aircraft 
services to those needed solely to meet valid mission requirements.
  Mr. Chairman, this position is clearly indefensible. It is time to 
put an end to unresponsive management violating established policies, 
flying on private jets at the taxpayers' expense simply for personal 
convenience.
  So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to achieve 
that result, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment. I understand the 
gentleman's amendment is related to the findings of the Government 
Accountability Office audit in August of 2005 concerning NASA mission 
management aircraft.
  I also understand that NASA has concurred with the administrative 
recommendations, meaning they agree with the GAO and the gentleman 
trying to implement the recommendations made by GAO. NASA is now using 
a new methodology to justify any passenger travel on its aircraft to 
match OMB Circular A-126.
  Further, OMB has reviewed NASA's revised policy and has no objections 
with respect to it.
  It is a good amendment, and I think it is doubly good because for the 
first time we have brought a bill to the floor with absolutely no NASA 
earmarks. The administrator has said this is very good because when you 
have earmarks, it takes away.
  So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and urge that it be 
adopted.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wolf for his support and 
for his hard work on this appropriations bill, and in an effort to not 
talk myself out of a sale, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1530


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
       Page 110, after line 8, insert the following new title:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for a manned space mission to Mars.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ 
minutes.
  This amendment simply says that none of the funds being appropriated 
to NASA shall be used for a manned space shot to Mars.
  We have heard throughout the appropriations debate legitimate 
complaints from the appropriators that they have too little money to 
meet various important needs. We are constantly faced with difficult 
choices on this floor between good programs. NASA itself has objected 
that it does not have enough money to do all that it is supposed to now 
do. I think that is right. I think it is terribly unfair and damaging 
to the

[[Page H4727]]

country to give to this important agency more than it can handle with 
the money it gets.
  I would like to be able to appropriate more money, but the budget 
says we can't do that. So what we can do is, as a Congress, set some 
priorities. Sending human beings to Mars, in my judgment, is at best a 
luxury that this country cannot now afford.
  We are talking about deficits that we have to deal with. We are 
talking about Social Security funding that will be needed. We are 
talking about a shortage within NASA to do everything it wants to do. 
To go forward with a commitment to send people to Mars, which is not in 
the arguments of any scientist I have ever heard as the best use of our 
funding, is a great mistake.
  This amendment does not cut a penny out of NASA. Instead, it allows 
the money to be spent by NASA more wisely. It does not stop them from 
spending money on their priorities. We have things like aeronautics 
that have not got enough money, we have other space travel, we have 
space exploration by instrumentation. Committing and allowing funds to 
be spent now as a downpayment on sending human beings to Mars is, as I 
said, at best a luxury that the country ought not to be indulging in.
  The justification for sending people to Mars is political, it is 
psychological, it is cultural, but it is not scientific. And we should 
also note that if we continue on this path now, so that money is spent 
to go to Mars, we will be confronted with an additional request at some 
point in the near future for $100 billion or more to do this.
  We talk rhetorically often about the need to make tough decisions, 
the need to set priorities. As I listen to the inability to fund 
important program after important program, the notion that NASA, which 
as I said tells us they do not have enough money to do everything they 
would like to do, that some of that should be spent on sending human 
beings to Mars is the gravest example I can think of of money unwisely 
spent.
  We talk about trying to save money. I don't want to save money on old 
people who need medical care. I don't want to save money on children 
who need help with drug abuse. I don't want to save money on protecting 
the border. I don't want to save money by cutting low-income housing 
for the elderly or the disabled.
  There aren't many areas where we can say, you know what, let us just 
not spend that money at all. Sending human beings to Mars ought to be 
of a very low priority compared to everything else we do.
  This amendment does not touch the funding of NASA. It does say that, 
of all of the needs that NASA now has, sending human beings to Mars is 
sufficiently low that we ought to put it aside, at least for now.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding, and I actually want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for offering this amendment, because I think it is a good amendment for 
us to discuss.
  There is actually very little in this bill that is devoted to the 
subject he is talking about. The vast majority of the funds go to the 
continued operation of the space station, the shuttle, and the 
development of a replacement vehicle, a safer, more reliable, less 
expensive vehicle for the shuttle.
  There is some early money for exploration devoted to returning to the 
Moon sometime in the next 10 to 15 years, and there is a very small 
amount of money devoted to the subject of can we put men and women on 
Mars someday and hopefully do that in a fashion with other countries to 
help reduce the cost.
  I think we should overwhelmingly vote ``no'' on this, and I will tell 
you why. This is the United States of America. We are a Nation of 
pioneers and explorers. When we left the Moon the last time for Apollo 
17, I thought we would be on Mars in 10 years. I never would have 
imagined that 30 or 40 years later we are still debating the subject.
  I believe we are destined to explore not just Mars but go on to other 
stars. It is in our nature as human beings. And for us to say, no, we 
don't want to do that; we can't afford it; we have too many other 
problems, I think would be a very unfortunate thing. It would be 
unfortunate for our kids, who we want to study math and science. And 
the teachers all tell me the same thing, there is nothing you can do to 
motivate them more to study math and science than to talk to them about 
manned space and exploring other planets.
  So I have a tremendous amount of respect for the gentleman, but I 
think he is wrong on this one. I recognize there are costs associated 
with it, and we are fighting a war, and we have a deficit, but this is 
a small amount of money, and I think we do need to proceed.
  So I would encourage a ``no'' vote on the Frank amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in 
support of the amendment.
  This is a Congress and this is a President which has decided we are 
going to blow $400 billion on the dumbest war since the War of 1812 in 
Iraq. This is the Congress that has decided that every other priority 
has to be scuttled so that we can provide $50 billion in tax cuts for 
millionaires this year. And yet there is no room in the Budget Inn for 
improving the health care of our people.
  We are actually going to be funding fewer grants next year at the 
National Institutes of Health for medical research than we were 2 years 
ago. We are squeezing health professions training. We are providing an 
education budget that is $1.5 billion below last year in terms of No 
Child Left Behind education programs. We are cutting law enforcement 
grants by over $2 billion below the year 2001. We are providing a 
squeeze on Legal Services, despite the amendment that was adopted last 
night. Mr. Gilchrest from Maryland just made a compelling argument 
about the need to spend a lot more money to protect our oceans.
  We don't have money for any of that, and yet, oh, we've got money to 
go to Mars. I am as excited as anybody else about the prospect of 
sending a man to Mars. I think that would be wonderful. But not if you 
have to do it on borrowed money and not if you are putting tax cuts for 
millionaires ahead of educating kids.
  I get excited about the space program, but I get a lot more excited 
about the prospect of providing clean water for every community in this 
country. I get a lot more excited about cleaning up school districts 
and fixing up schools and training teachers so that every kid in 
America is trained by a competent teacher, rather than having a huge 
percentage of our kids trained by teachers who were never educated in 
the field that they are teaching. So I guess it depends on what you are 
most excited about.
  It seems to me that the gentleman is pointing out that we ought to 
have a little common sense in deciding what ought to be put first in 
this country. I would prefer that we put Earth-based science ahead of 
sending somebody to Mars.
  If you want to clean up the deficit, if you want to clean up the 
deficits we have in investments in education and investments in health 
care, if you want to take care of the fact that 44 million people in 
this country are without health insurance, you get that done, then, 
baby, I am all for you if you want to go to Mars.
  Until then, I would like to send to Mars every politician that thinks 
that the existing priorities are the right ones. They are not. They are 
wacky. This amendment isn't even a close call. We ought to adopt it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, if this amendment were adopted, it would 
shut off all funding for all high-technology work that NASA is doing 
that has multiple applications.
  The amendment says, ``no money can be spent in support of the manned 
mission to Mars.'' There is no manned mission to Mars in this bill. But 
the technology application, the research work that NASA is doing to 
develop the next

[[Page H4728]]

generation of rocket propulsion, the research work that NASA is doing 
to develop the next generation of microcomputers, the technology, for 
example, in this BlackBerry can be used on a manned mission to Mars and 
also manned missions in low-Earth orbit.
  The technology that NASA is developing to fight cancer, any astronaut 
that goes above the Earth's atmosphere is immediately exposed to a 
higher risk of cancer, yet the research NASA is doing to protect 
astronauts in space and low-earth orbit and to travel to the moon, for 
example, could obviously be used on a mission to Mars. But if the 
gentleman's amendment is adopted, it would cut off any of that work 
that is being done right now to help protect our astronauts' lives in 
low-Earth orbit, because that technology could arguably be used on a 
mission to Mars.
  There is no manned mission to Mars in this bill. The gentleman's 
amendment is so broadly written, it will have the effect of shutting 
off most of NASA's research and development work in the cutting-edge 
technologies that are so essential to the success of the manned space 
program and to the success of the American economy.
  I urge the Members to vote ``no'' against this shortsighted 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Perhaps I should include some instruction in reading. The gentleman 
has simply not described the amendment. It does not say no money can be 
used in support of. It says no money can be ``used for.''
  The gentleman from Florida said a small amount of money here is for 
Mars. It is a small amount of money now. It is a downpayment on a huge 
amount of money. So this would not prevent any of that spending. You 
could spend it on the astronaut issue. All it says is you cannot use 
it, and he said support for. There is a difference between ``support 
for'' and ``used for.'' So let us not leave reading out of the 
curriculum.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Cramer) 1 minute.
  (Mr. CRAMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRAMER. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee.
  I have been a member of this subcommittee since the subcommittee was 
formed, and I was a member of the VA-HUD Subcommittee before then. And, 
as a matter of full disclosure, I come from an area that has one of the 
NASA centers, the Marshall Space Flight Center.
  But the gentleman's amendment is not well designed. This would kill, 
this would kill the core of NASA. This would redefine what NASA is all 
about, and I urge the Members to oppose this amendment.
  We have balanced carefully, the chairman and the ranking member of 
this subcommittee, within the confines of this budget, to order what we 
could do for NASA versus what we could do for COPS programs, Justice 
programs, and NOAA and other programs in here. This is a good debate to 
have, because we don't have enough money and we don't have enough room 
in this budget.
  But this is a bad amendment, and I urge the Members to oppose it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself the remaining time.
  That argument is further out in space than the Mars shot. The core of 
NASA is to send people to Mars?
  All it says is that you can't use the money for a manned space shot 
to Mars. You have got the Moon, you have got aeronautics, you have 
everything else. That simply misstates it.
  Here is where we are. Does this House have the right to say that we 
do or don't want to be committed to going to Mars? Here is what will 
happen if the amendment is defeated. They will say, well, some money 
was voted that way; and the defense is, well, we need it to do cancer 
research, we need it for the Moon, but it will be used as a downpayment 
for a very expensive mission to Mars.
  The gentleman from Florida said, well, we shouldn't say we can't 
afford this. That would be terrible for America. But we can't afford to 
pay old people for all of their medical drug bills. There is a doughnut 
hole. The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee said we 
can't afford more border guards. We can't afford more beds.
  Of course, there are things we can't afford. The notion is not 
whether or not we should acknowledge what we can't afford but whether 
we should be sensible about what we can afford and can't afford.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We 
have laid out a compelling vision and mission for the civil space 
program to conduct a robust program of human and robotic space 
exploration.
  Last year, this Congress overwhelmingly endorsed the President's 
Vision for Space Exploration with a vote of 383-15 on the NASA 
Authorization Act. This amendment would abandon those plans endorsed by 
Congress.
  We cannot turn back NASA's long-range plans. I certainly urge all of 
my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and let's stay on track.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Just the 
fact that the gentleman from Massachusetts has spent so much time 
explaining what his amendment means I think is the best proof that it 
is so vague that we don't really know what we are not funding with this 
amendment.
  There is $3.9 billion in the Constellation Systems account. 
Conceivably, the amendment could prevent any of that spending. All of 
it, it could be argued, relates to a manned space mission to Mars.
  The amendment is so vague that I think that is why everybody is 
really concerned about it.
  It is absolutely true that NASA is having problems. There is no 
question about it. The President has proposed a space exploration 
initiative. He calls it a vision, in some ways of course it would be 
if, if, it were genuinely funded. My concern is that it is not 
genuinely funded.
  There are a lot of problems with NASA funding, but it all has to do 
with not enough funding to do everything that we want to do. That is 
evidenced by the myriad of science programs that are either cancelled 
or cut in the President's budget. It is terrible.
  Every scientist that is at all concerned about operating in the NASA 
camp has expressed how opposed they are to the NASA funding. But this, 
to me, is not the way to get at that.
  What we do need is more money in NASA, and NASA, I think, frankly 
needs to come forward with a budget that is more specific, one that we 
can deal with, instead of coming up with these operating plans. That 
really is a very imperfect way to fund an agency.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have to say to my friend, I would be 
impressed if they would come forward and say, yes, we think, as the 
gentleman from Florida said, we should be able to go to Mars. But to 
argue that because an amendment which says no money can be used for a 
manned space mission to Mars, that that means you can't use it for the 
Moon or anything else simply isn't the English language.
  The fact is the amendment is very narrowly drawn. It says you cannot 
use the money for manned space to Mars or for another purpose.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Can't we get an honest debate about 
whether or not to go to Mars?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Not in 5 minutes, unfortunately.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Gordon).
  Mr. GORDON. As usual, my friend from Massachusetts raises good 
points, and, as usual, he is a good watch dog for our Congress. I agree 
with him; we have to have priorities. But I think he has picked the 
wrong priority on this occasion.
  NASA, as has been said, under the right occasions is underfunded. It 
is not overfunded. It is an investment in our country. Then so you have 
to think, okay, within the NASA budget, where do we spend our money?

[[Page H4729]]

  Let me agree with my friend from Massachusetts that I think that we 
do need to slow down some of the manned Mars missions and fund other 
programs. I would like to see more funds then. But if we are not going 
to have adequate funding, we need to slow it down. But it would be 
irresponsible to do away with some of the planning in other sorts of 
areas.
  His amendment, I think there are really two main problems: one, that 
you don't just all of a sudden get in a space capsule and go to Mars. 
There is a lot of planning that goes before that. Additionally, there 
is overlap with a lot of the other missions.
  Even though I know the gentleman is trying to be clear in what he is 
doing, it simply doesn't come out that way. It would be a major problem 
for this country, a major problem for NASA. I will certainly work with 
him to try to, again, help better prioritize the planning of a Moon-
Mars mission.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman from West Virginia 
yield?
  Mr. GORDON. If there is time left, I would certainly yield to my 
friend.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I do not believe that anybody seriously 
says that if the bill says you can't spend, an amendment says you can't 
spend it on a manned mission to Mars, that anybody would then think you 
had to stop it on the Moon.
  Of course, that is one of the arguments you would make beforehand 
that you would have to disregard after. But let me disagree with my 
friend from Tennessee. He said, he agrees we should slow it down. What 
is stopping us? Where is the language that does that?
  Mr. GORDON. If you could reclaim your time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GORDON. What is stopping us would be this amendment. This 
amendment simply is not drawn, as much as the gentleman would like for 
it to be drawn in a narrow sense and as much as he would like for it to 
be a scalpel, it is not. Maybe, again, all working together in the 
future, we could come up with a better one. Right now, the intention is 
not what has resulted.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment 
offered by Congressman Frank that would put a funding limitation on 
manned space flight.
  NASA is at a critical crossroads. Over the next few years, the agency 
must complete the International Space Station, retire the Space 
Shuttle, develop a new space vehicle, and maintain needed science and 
aeronautics programs. Congress has already spoken in support of a 
manned mission to Mars with the NASA Authorization bill earlier this 
year. Disrupting the vision now only sets America back. At a time when 
the United States is concerned about global competitiveness, cutting 
NASA funding would send our country in the wrong direction.
  Mr. Chairman, NASA is a good investment. Over the last 10 years, 
NASA's budget has decreased or remained flat while overall domestic 
spending grew substantially. Fully funding the space exploration vision 
represents only 7 percent of the Federal budget and yet this small 
investment yields large returns in health care, public safety, and 
telecommunications. Space exploration technologies have produced 
advanced semiconductors that power our businesses, materials employed 
by our military to keep our men and women safe, and software that aids 
our law enforcement personnel in fighting crime and detecting illegal 
drugs. The Appropriations Committee has done a commendable job 
balancing our national needs with our budget realities. They have 
preserved vital funding for critical areas, including science 
initiatives, and I would urge the House to support the underlying bill 
and vote against the Frank amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to the Frank amendment to H.R. 5672, which would prohibit funds from 
being used for a manned space mission to Mars. I believe the amendment 
should be defeated.
  NASA recently announced the work assignments for Exploration Systems' 
Constellation program at NASA centers. These assignments will ensure 
that the agency can begin to meet the challenges of the Vision for 
Space Exploration while maintaining 10 healthy and productive field 
centers.
  NASA's plan to implement the Constellation Program depends upon funds 
that carry over from fiscal year 2006-2007 into fiscal year 2008-2009. 
This authority ensures that funding will be available in 2008, when 
development work begins to ramp up significantly with the Critical 
Design Review for Constellation's Crew Exploration Vehicle, CEV.
  If NASA is unable to secure the necessary resources, the gap between 
Shuttle retirement and CEV availability will expand. This will increase 
both the risks and overall costs for bringing the new CEV and CLV 
systems online, as well as increasing the safety risk of operating the 
International Space Station. An extension of the gap will also cause an 
unacceptably high number of departures of our skilled workforce across 
the NASA Centers, and threaten to erode the Nation's industrial base 
for human space flight activities. We therefore consider preservation 
of this funding an important economic issue for our districts, as well 
as a national priority.
  The CEV and the companion Crew Launch Vehicle are once-in-a-
generation development efforts. The effective transition from the Space 
Shuttle to the CEV will be NASA's greatest management challenge over 
the next several years. NASA's Exploration Systems ought be fully 
funded, not cut, to ensure that NASA has the resources it needs when 
the critical moment arrives.
  I urge defeat of the Frank amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Chocola

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

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Chocola:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for business class or first class airline travel by 
     employees of the Department of State in contravention of 41 
     CFR 301-10.122 through 301-10.124.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, not a day goes by that I am not amazed by 
the waste of tax dollars by Federal agencies. Sometimes the waste is a 
result of bad management. Sometimes it is the result of willful 
violation of established policies, but it is always inexcusable.
  A recent GAO report reveals just how bad it can get. In March of 
2006, the GAO found that the State Department is wasting nearly $100 
million a year on unauthorized premium travel. In 2004, the State 
Department spent $140 million on premium travel; that is usually 
business class travel, and 67 percent of that travel was either not 
justified, not properly authorized or both. And that resulted in $94 
million of taxpayer money wasted.
  Not only is the fact that the money was wasted troubling, but the 
management practice of disregarding what it cost when it is not your 
own money is a cause for great concern. As an example, most of the 
authorizations for the premium travel came from subordinates of those 
that were traveling who told the GAO that they were afraid to challenge 
senior executives of the State Department for violating established 
travel policies.
  It is not just an excusable practice of putting subordinates in 
intimidating positions at work here; it is also a lack of basic 
management practices. As an example, GAO also found that although 
government tickets that are purchased and not used are fully 
refundable, the practice of the State Department is not to bother to 
try to reconcile tickets that are purchased and not used, which 
resulted in a flat-out waste of $6 million of taxpayer money.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply requires the State Department 
personnel to follow established travel policies, and it is an 
understatement to say that it is unfortunate that I even have to come 
to the floor and offer this amendment.
  I guess we have to send a clear message to senior State Department 
officials that when they are traveling on

[[Page H4730]]

their own dime, they can sit wherever they want on a plane, but when 
you are traveling on the taxpayers' dime, you should follow established 
policies and sit in the back of the plane.
  Although I understand that flying coach can be cruel and unusual 
punishment, I think that those that willfully waste the taxpayer 
dollars for personal comfort are getting off easy if we pass this 
amendment.
  I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in support of the amendment. It is a good amendment. 
There has been a government-wide review of the waste, fraud and abuse 
of the government travel card program. The Government Accountability 
Office has reviewed the State Department policy and has concluded a 
similar review of the Department of Defense policy.
  The State Department manages the second largest centrally billed 
travel card program in the Federal Government after the Department of 
Defense. A GAO audit of the State Department's centrally billed foreign 
affairs travel found that 67 percent of premium class travel by State 
and other foreign affairs personnel during most of fiscal years 2003 
and 2004 were not properly authorized.
  Although GAO found deficiencies in documentation for premium class 
travel, GAO did not find in any instance travel that was conducted for 
other than official purposes. GAO has made 18 recommendations to 
improve the State Department's travel card program. The committee has 
looked into the issue and understands that, as of June 1, the 
Department of State has taken action on all the recommendations 
outlined in the GAO's March 6th report. The Undersecretary of State for 
Management has made this a top priority for the Department.
  I wonder how they even got to this point. I agree with the gentleman, 
and I want to thank him for that. We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer 
money is not subject to waste, fraud and abuse, and I strongly, 
strongly support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wolf for his 
hard work and his support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Watson

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

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

                TITLE VIII--ADDTIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to negotiate the accession by the Russian Federation 
     into the World Trade Organization.

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 2006, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with Mr. Issa, and offer this 
amendment that disallows the use of taxpayer dollars to negotiate 
Russia's accession into the World Trade Organization until Russia is 
removed from the United States Trade Representative's priority watch 
list for intellectual property violations.
  Russia should not be allowed consideration until it takes steps to 
protect intellectual property before we let them into the exclusive 
World Trade Organization. The cost of Russian piracy, from the 
copyright community from the motion picture and recording industry, to 
software inventors and patent holders, was over $1.7 billion in 2005, 
and losses topped $6.8 billion over the last 5 years.
  Russia has been on the USTR's priority list for intellectual property 
violations for 9 straight years without showing any significant signs 
of improvement. Delaying Russia's entrance into the WTO until Russia 
enacts and enforces laws to protect intellectual property rights will 
send a strong and serious message that the United States values its 
Nation's ideas and products.
  We learned this lesson the hard way with China. Once China became a 
member of the WTO, it has been a very difficult, time-consuming and 
expensive task to bring a case against them before the WTO to get them 
to enforce IP protections.
  The time to pressure Russia, to put an end to their egregious 
intellectual property violations is now, and I urge my colleagues to 
support the Watson-Issa amendment.


                             Point of Order

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). Does the gentleman from Florida 
insist on his point of order?
  Mr. SHAW. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I raise a point of order against 
the amendment on the grounds that this amendment violates clause 5(a) 
of the House rule XXI because it is a tariff legislation not reported 
by a committee with jurisdiction over revenue measures.
  The countervailing duty law provides special treatment to the World 
Trade Organization members. This amendment would impact Russia's 
membership in the World Trade Organization and thus impact the tariff 
treatment of Russia under the countervailing duty law in the Tariff Act 
of 1930.
  The rule referred to is very specific that that is reserved to the 
House Ways and Means Committee, and the second portion of that rule 
provides, for purposes of this paragraph, a tax or tariff measure 
includes an amendment proposing a limitation on funds in a general 
appropriation of a fund for administration of a tax or tariff.
  I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members desiring to be heard on 
the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Florida raises a point of order against the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California on the ground that 
it violates clause 5(a) of rule XXI.
  As the Chair stated on June 18, 2004, clause 5(a)(2) of rule XXI 
enables a point of order against limitation amendments addressing the 
administration of a tax or tariff whether or not the maker of the point 
of order can demonstrate a necessary and inevitable change in tax or 
tariff statuses or liabilities or in revenue collection.
  The amendment would limit funds for the negotiation of Russia's entry 
into the World Trade Organization. As argued by the gentleman from 
Florida, membership in the World Trade Organization as a matter of law 
effects various changes in the treatment of a country's products under 
domestic tariff law. An example of such law is Section 1671 of title 
19, United States Code. By limiting funds for an activity that, if 
completed, would engage tariff law, the amendment is a limitation on 
funds for the administration of a tariff within the meaning of clause 
5(a) of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that we live under the 
rules of the House that we have voted in the 108th and the 109th 
Congress. But I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important 
matter.
  I appreciate that had the Ways and Means Committee addressed this 
issue in a timely fashion to make a stronger statement heard to Russia 
for their misconduct, for the billions of dollars lost to U.S. 
companies, including the music and television industry and software 
industries, all of which are very important to California, we would not 
be here today.
  Additionally, it is with regret that I remind the Appropriations 
Committee that had they simply chosen not to fund this, this amendment 
would not be necessary, but the not funding by the Appropriations 
Committee is in order.
  So although I don't approve of this rule, in hindsight, I recognize 
that the time to object to it was at the beginning of the Congress. 
Before yielding

[[Page H4731]]

back, I will, therefore, attempt to have this rule modified in the next 
Congress so as to allow people to determine where their funds will be 
spent. Because this rule effectively made it impossible to not fund 
something simply because in previous Congresses decisions had been made 
on tariff.
  I do appreciate, though, that we will live under the rules of the 
House; and Congresswoman Watson and myself will continue to work to 
make sure that Russia lives up to the standards before entering the 
WTO.
  And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your kindness in giving me 
this opportunity to speak.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I would like to respond to the 
gentleman and his comments.
  Actually, last month, the committee of jurisdiction, which is the 
Ways and Means Committee, and the Finance, sent a very strong 
bipartisan message to the administration, which I am sure you quite 
approve of, opposing concluding even a bilateral market access deal 
with Russia until that country meaningfully addresses its rampant IPR 
piracy problems.
  The committee of jurisdiction is monitoring this issue very closely 
and is consulting with the U.S. Trade Representative at every step. The 
administration assures us that it will not allow Russia to join the 
World Trade Organization unless we achieve strong intellectual property 
rights protection with Russia. The United States will not allow Russia 
to become a World Trade Organization member until this is confronted.
  Simply not negotiating with Russia, however, would be a mistake and 
would not be productive. Congress will have the opportunity to impact 
the World Trade Organization accession process because it must pass 
permanent normal trade relations in order for this to happen.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. In conclusion, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. 
Issa.
  When we traveled together to the Duma in Russia, we stated our 
position very clearly; and at that time there were 57 different 
locations in Moscow alone that were selling our copied materials. They 
would go out and close them and they would open right up in another 
location the next day. So we are acting as the watchdogs. I appreciate 
the help from the committee in keeping this on front and center and on 
the table, and we are going to continue to watch.
  So thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for this time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, look what China is doing. I think you are 
right on doing this. I wish you had actually been successful, from my 
own perspective. But look at what China is doing. Windows 95 was 
available on the streets of Beijing before it was available on the 
streets of Washington, D.C. So be careful. And I am not sure the 
administration is going to look out for your best interest on this 
either.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage the Chairman of the 
Science, State, Justice and Commerce Subcommittee in a colloquy 
regarding the importance of the State Department's Bureau of Economic 
and Business Affairs.
  Mr. Chairman, additional funding for the Bureau of Economic and 
Business Affairs is important to further diplomatic efforts to protect 
intellectual property rights in countries that are not members of the 
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD.
  Countries that joined the OECD did so because they share a commitment 
to a democratic government and market economy which depends on adequate 
protections for intellectual property rights. The non-OECD countries 
especially need the benefit of United States diplomacy to understand 
the importance of protecting intellectual property, not just for 
others' intellectual property but also because it is in the best 
interest to protect their own ideas and creations with laws and then 
enforce those laws.
  Fighting intellectual property violations in developing countries 
will take more than cracking the whip on illegal sales. We need to 
create the political will at the top of the governance structure so we 
can drive a real impact on the ground.
  Mr. Wolf, I would like to thank you for your leadership on our 
Nation's diplomatic priorities and ask if you would be willing to work 
with me to provide additional funding for the State Department's Bureau 
of Economic and Business Affairs to give them the resources to work on 
developing institutions to enforce intellectual property protections in 
non-OECD countries.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman; and I will 
work with her to provide additional resources for the State 
Department's Economic Bureau to enhance their ability to pursue better 
enforcement of intellectual property protections in non-OECD countries.
  But where is the amendment to put the will, the commitment, the 
passion? And frankly, we will be glad to do this. But some big law firm 
down on K Street is going to be retained by some of these people, and 
they will be coming up here and working the administration and working 
others. Funding is good, but give me somebody who really cares, really 
believes, really is committed.
  When you have people out there representing the Khartoum Government 
in Sudan, when Darfur and China has all these big law firms on 
retention, just funding this, so unless there is the commitment, the 
determination, but, yes, we will work with you every way we possibly 
can.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, we are going to see that your passion 
spreads throughout this House.
  And I would like to ask, now, Mr. Mollohan the same question. Would 
you be willing to work with me to allocate additional funding for the 
State Department's Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs to give them 
the resources to work on developing political will to enforce 
intellectual property protections in the non-OECD countries?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, I would be pleased to work with the chairman and 
the gentlewoman; pledge to work to increase resources for the State 
Department's economic bureau to enhance their ability to improve 
enforcement of intellectual property protection.
  Ms. WATSON. And I want to thank you so much, Mr. Mollohan and Mr. 
Wolf.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Culberson

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

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used in contravention of section 
     1373 of title 8, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the State of Texas today executed one of 
the most dangerous, vicious killers in our State's history. Maturino 
Resendiz was known as the ``Railway Killer.'' He had killed repeatedly. 
He was a serial killer who had been arrested and deported seven times 
prior to the murder of Dr. Claudia Benton in Houston.
  This individual was present in the United States illegally, but the 
City of Houston has a policy, in violation of Federal law, that 
prohibits Houston police officers from asking whether or not an 
individual they pick up is in the United States illegally.
  The Federal law is very clear that local governments, local law 
enforcement agencies, cannot have any policy that prohibits or 
restricts the ability of a police officer from determining someone's 
presence in the country, whether or not they are legal. And my 
amendment simply enforces existing Federal law and makes it clear that, 
in order for a local government or police

[[Page H4732]]

agency to receive Federal money, they must comply with Federal law and 
follow Federal law in determining whether or not the person they have 
detained is here illegally.
  The City of Los Angeles has a similar policy. Yet 95 percent of their 
outstanding warrants for homicide are for illegal aliens. This is a law 
and order amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is a conflict, and you are 
conflicted when you come to the floor and a good friend and colleague 
wants to undermine his own city.
  Frankly, I think my colleagues need to understand what this sanctuary 
means. It is a misnomer. It gives a suggestion that we are, in fact, 
welcoming and providing a grand parade. What it simply says is that we 
are going to burden, this amendment is going to be an unfunded mandate 
on local cities and jurisdictions whose law enforcement officers are 
busy in various parts of their communities trying to protect Americans 
from break-ins.
  There is no way that you can connect the tragedy and horrificness of 
this executed individual, which no one has disagreed with, with the 
policies of individual cities where they make a decision that they are 
utilizing their police officers to take care of the juveniles who need 
help, to take care of the victims of rape, unfortunately, who need 
help, to take care of those who are victimized by homicide who need 
help.
  The City of Houston is on record, the chief of police is on record, 
and the record is that our officers are there to do the work of the 
local government. They are not there to do the work of the Federal 
Government.
  I would wish my good friend and colleague would add and join us in 
reinvesting into border patrol agents and ICE agents. And, by the way, 
any suggestion that they are not cooperating, I met with the police 
chief. There is no indication whatsoever in Houston that they are not 
cooperating with the local law enforcement and ICE.
  What you do with this, and I hope my colleagues are listening. I know 
this sounds like Let's Bash an Immigrant Day. But what you will be 
doing is you will be cutting off funds from your local jurisdictions. 
They need to make their own decisions without the punitive measures of 
this Federal Government, particularly when we have fallen down on the 
job and not provided the kind of funding that we need for internal 
enforcement and for law enforcement and for border patrol agents.
  So I would hope this distinguished gentleman would understand that 
you are putting an unfunded mandate on your own city and many other 
municipalities across America.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to point out 
that the sanctuary policy my colleague is attempting to protect is a 
policy designed to protect and shield criminal aliens, and my amendment 
enforces Federal law. Federal law is intended to uncloak those criminal 
aliens and allow local law enforcement officers to identify people like 
the Railway Killer so they can turn them over to Federal authorities.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague 
from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend 
and colleague from Texas for this amendment.
  My hometown of Austin has seen the horrifying effects that a 
sanctuary policy can have on a community.
  Nearly 3 years ago, an 18-year-old woman by the name of Jenny Garcia 
was found stabbed to death in her northwest Austin home. An illegal 
alien by the name of David Diaz Morales was one of Jenny's coworkers. 
He made it clear to her that he wanted to be more than that. When Jenny 
rejected his advances, this put him into a rage. And on January 26, 
2004, Morales broke into Jenny's home, forcefully grabbed her, held her 
down, raped her and brutally stabbed her to death.
  In less than 24 hours, the Austin Police Department arrested this 20-
year-old criminal who had absolutely no business being in the United 
States, let alone Jenny's home.
  However, Mr. Morales had no business being free to walk America's 
streets either. You see, before murdering Jenny, he had been previously 
arrested for molesting a child in Austin. Travis County District 
Attorney Ronnie Earle declined to prosecute the case. Morales wasn't 
deported. Instead, he was released on the streets of Austin, resulting 
in the murder of Jenny Garcia. Jenny did not have to die that day.
  This is one of many horrific examples of the many preventable 
injustices that have resulted from this irresponsible sanctuary policy. 
We owe it to victims like Jenny Garcia and so many others to include 
this language in the underlying bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues 
to support the Culberson amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the House 
very briefly that the House has already approved this amendment on a 
vote of 218.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the 
committee, who, I understand, is going to accept this amendment. I want 
to thank the author of the amendment.
  This has come up time and time again in front of this House. We have 
cities all over this country that are ignoring the law. It is part of 
the law today that says you cannot have sanctuary cities, and yet 
cities are doing it, and they are snubbing their noses at the Federal 
law. And as a result of it, crimes are being committed. People have 
been killed as a result of the fact that cities provide sanctuary for 
people who are here illegally, have come in contact with the police, 
and the police have refused to make that known to the ICE agency. As a 
result of that kind of policy, people in this country have died.
  I, again, want to thank the author of the amendment and the committee 
for accepting this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to 
clarify, I think, the discussion here on the floor, and my deepest 
sympathy for cases that have been previously cited.
  The sanctuary terminology, again, is a misnomer. It is a suggestion 
that law enforcement has actually put a welcome mat out for criminals. 
It is well known that any criminal that does a criminal act or is 
stopped for a traffic infraction is, in fact, taken care of by the 
local municipality. Where we have had failures is that we have not had 
sufficient funding for internal enforcement officers and others dealing 
with immigration issues for these individuals to be transferred.
  I cannot stand here on the floor and allow the debate to suggest that 
local law enforcement, sheriffs, constables, police are letting 
horrific criminals go. They simply are not. If you do the crime, you 
will be arrested and do the time if your law enforcement are engaged.
  This will punish cities who are not turning their law enforcement, 
their meager law enforcement resources, into immigration patrols. That 
is a responsibility of the Federal Government. And to suggest that this 
amendment is going to stop the railroad killer and others; that was a 
combination of U.S. Marshals and FBI and HPD and everyone who was 
focused on finding that killer. No one is letting killers get away. And 
this particular amendment is not what Members may think it is, a way to 
get and to stand tall on illegal immigration. This is a way to 
undermine your respective local jurisdictions who have the 
responsibility of

[[Page H4733]]

the enforcement of the law to protect the citizens of the jurisdiction 
or this Nation. All this does is jeopardize their funding when one 
citizen says, ``You know what? They let this individual go that looked 
like they were undocumented, and they were driving a car.'' This is 
what this does. And you go to any of your towns and find out that there 
are individuals whose surnames are other than ours or other than what 
you would perceive to be a standard name, if you will, and has a 
Hispanic sound or has some other sound to it and you want law 
enforcement then to arrest them, and you would suggest that law 
enforcement is not doing their job if they release them. This is the 
kind of determination you are going to ask on the streets of your 
respective cities and counties and jurisdictions when you should be 
dealing with this from the funding perspective of the Federal 
Government.
  This is a bad provision. Whether it has been voted on before, it is a 
bad provision, and all it is going to do is hurt the cities. And, 
clearly, my good friend and colleague knows that this debate is going 
on in the City of Houston as we speak, and those are the individuals 
that need to make that decision.
  I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from 
Texas for yielding.
  Let me make it clear. What this amendment does, which I support, is 
very simple. There is a Federal law that says you may not prohibit, it 
does not require you do it, but you may not prohibit local law 
enforcement officials from cooperating on immigration issues. This 
amendment simply says you cannot use Federal funds to violate Federal 
law. Pretty simple. Pretty logical. Do not use Federal funds to violate 
existing Federal law. You do not have to make them, but do not prohibit 
your law enforcement from cooperating on immigration issues.
  We should pass this amendment.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to point out that 
Congress has passed and the President has signed Federal legislation on 
the books which requires local law enforcement officers to identify a 
person who is in the country illegally. Local law enforcement needs 
every tool in their tool kit possible to identify and uncover criminal 
aliens.
  This amendment is aimed at enforcing Federal law, giving local law 
enforcement the tools they need to identify and uncover killers like 
the Railroad Killer, who was executed today in Texas.
  The sanctuary policy that my colleague from Houston is attempting to 
defend is a ``don't ask and don't tell'' policy that prohibits officers 
from identifying criminal aliens. A vote for this amendment is to help 
law enforcement identify and report criminal aliens and enforce Federal 
law.
  I urge a ``yes'' on the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Etheridge

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

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. For the Public Safety Officers' Death Benefits 
     program, as authorized by part L of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to fund 
     obligations of the Department of Justice resulting from 
     subsection (k) of section 1201 of such part, in additition to 
     amounts otherwise appropriated by this Act under title I for 
     ``public safety officers'' for payments authorized by such 
     part L and hereby derived from the amount provided in this 
     Act under title I for ``General administration--salaries and 
     expenses'', $38,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, Michael Childress, Randelman, North 
Carolina; Roger Armstrong, Atlanta, Illinois; Steven Rosenfeld, Salem, 
Virginia; Donald Eugene Ward, Columbus, Ohio; Richard Allen Fast, Alum 
Bridge, West Virginia.
  Mr. Chairman, these are just five of the 135 eligible firefighters 
who have died in the line of duty since this House unanimously approved 
the Hometown Heroes Survivor Benefit Act and it was signed by the 
President into law on December 15, 2003.
  The Hometown Heroes Act, which had 281 bipartisan cosponsors, made 
sure that a public service officer, such as a fireman, law enforcement 
officer, EMT or other public servant, who died of a fatal heart attack 
or stroke in the line of duty would receive a benefit.
  Since the President signed this bill into law on December 15, 2\1/2\ 
years ago, 135 firefighters have suffered a fatal heart attack or 
stroke while responding to a call. However, in 2\1/2\ years, none of 
these survivors have received one single penny of these congressionally 
authorized benefits because the U.S. Department of Justice has not 
approved the regulations.
  I have offered this amendment to highlight the Justice Department's 
foot dragging and delays. The first delay came when they proposed 
regulations that were in direct contradiction to the legislation that 
was passed. They then delayed when they quibbled with the words and 
phrases. The last excuse is that they are waiting for approval from the 
Office of Management and Budget.
  Mr. Chairman, Members and staff spent countless hours while writing 
this legislation to clarify what it really meant. During the Judiciary 
Committee markup on this measure, Chairman Sensenbrenner stated, ``I 
believe this bill provides the Bureau of Justice Assistance with the 
direction they require in reviewing and granting these benefits to 
deserving and qualified public safety officers who dedicate themselves 
to the public interest and pay the ultimate price for the public 
good.''
  Once the President signed the bill into law, we were in constant 
contact with DOJ, working through the queries.
  The brave men and women who serve our cities and towns every day, 
many of whom are volunteers, do not delay when they are given a call 
and someone is in distress. They act, and they act immediately.
  I call on Attorney General Gonzales to stop making excuses, to end 
the delays, stop denying these victims and families the benefits they 
deserve. The brave men and women should not have to wait another day.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Kennedy), who just lost a fireman in his district.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
North Carolina for his work on this issue.
  On June 13, Rhode Island and Providence lost Mike Day due to a heart 
attack just after he had returned from a fire to the fire station. He 
is the son of a firefighter, and he is one of four brothers who all 
became Providence firefighters. He was passionate about helping save 
people's lives and helping to serve people.
  Who has he left behind? He has left his wife of 22 years behind, 
Cynthia, as well as four children, Mike Jr., Amanda, Brianne and 
Stephanie.
  The Hometown Heroes Act was signed by the President 3 years ago. 
Where is the support for these families who put their lives on the line 
to save our lives and our communities? The delay out there from the 
Department of Justice means that these benefit applications of people 
like Mike Day are waiting, collecting dust in the Department of 
Justice. This is inexcusable.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe our public safety officers need to know that 
if they lay down their lives for us that we are going to be there to 
back their families up and make sure those families are supported. The 
hardship of these families shouldn't wait on the Department of Justice 
and neither should we

[[Page H4734]]

in Congress wait for the Department of Justice.
  I urge passage of this amendment.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Bob Etheridge should be 
commended for what he did 3 years ago; and we had an overwhelming vote 
on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Unfortunately, none of the survivors of the 135 firefighters that he 
mentioned just a few moments ago and which Mr. Kennedy mentioned a few 
moments ago that died have received a single penny of the authorized 
benefits. This is because the Justice Department has not approved the 
regulations that would put the provision of the Hometown Heroes Act 
into effect.
  This is unconscionable. This is wholly unacceptable. This is another 
time where the will of the Congress has not been activated.
  This amendment sends a necessary directive to the Attorney General 
that the families of our Nation's first responders should not be made 
to wait for what they deserve any longer. This amendment is a clear 
message that the Congress will no longer allow the Department of 
Justice to inexplicably harm the families of our Nation's heroes.
  This was the right thing to do 3 years ago. It is the right thing to 
do now, to pass this amendment now. I was proud to stand with the 
gentleman from North Carolina when we passed this, many of us, all of 
us, in December, 2003. We want their loved ones to be fully taken care 
of. This amendment is that message. It is time for us to act, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman is going to 
withdraw the amendment. On page 65 of the report, the subcommittee says 
the committee expects the Department of Justice to work swiftly toward 
full implementation of the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Act.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to compliment the 
gentleman from North Carolina for bringing this issue up. I remember 
when he first brought it to the Congress, and I want to compliment him 
for bringing this amendment to the floor.
  I also want to compliment the chairman for recognizing this has been 
a problem. It is contained in our report that the Justice Department 
move quickly. I just want to point out this isn't a hard thing for the 
Justice Department to do. Rulemaking as simple as this ought to be done 
in 30 days. Publish the proposed rule, get a few comments and get it 
out there. It is inexcusable that this program, which is so 
meritorious, hasn't been implemented for 3 years.
  I support the gentleman's effort.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his willingness 
to work on this and also Ranking Member Mollohan. They are absolutely 
right. There is no excuse for this. Men and women are doing their job, 
and we ought to support them.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, with 
the understanding it is going to be in the report language.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Capuano

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

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. For grants for young witness assistance, as 
     authorized by section 1136 of the Violence Against Women and 
     Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 
     109-162), and the amount otherwise provided by this Act for 
     ``Other--salaries and expenses, departmental management'' is 
     hereby reduced by, $3,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, very simply, this amendment will help protect young 
juvenile witnesses who have the courage to do the right thing and stand 
up and testify against criminals that they have witnessed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment. I was 
waiting to hear his speech. I was listening and settling in. I do 
accept the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

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

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 303 of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13212).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I am offering the same amendment that 
I have offered to almost all the other appropriations bills which have 
all been accepted, because I think it is so important for the Federal 
Government to put its money where its mouth is.
  We are all running around talking about alternative energy and 
alternative fuel vehicles. All the while, our Federal agencies are 
failing to fully implement the 1992 Energy Policy Act which the 
Congress passed and which the President signed into law.
  Seventy-five percent of new vehicles purchased for the Federal fleet 
should be alternative fuel by now, but it is only about 26 percent. For 
the major agencies in this bill, the numbers are disheartening. The 
Department of Commerce has only 32 percent of alternative fuel 
vehicles, the Department of Justice came in at a paltry 6 percent, and 
the Department of State was just 9 percent.
  We have not only the opportunity to end our addiction to oil, we have 
the need to do so. Our national security continues to be threatened 
because we are reliant on undemocratic sheikdoms in the Middle East 
that funnel money to the terrorists who would do us harm.
  Our energy policy and our national security policy are intertwined, 
and we can start right here by mandating that our Federal agencies look 
for alternative fuel vehicles, which they have to do by a law that we 
passed more than a decade ago.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and provide the 
leadership that is so desperately needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, before beginning, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.

[[Page H4735]]

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments at the desk having 
to do with the medicinal use of marijuana. I understand that the first 
one has been allocated 10 minutes and the second one has been allocated 
20 minutes, is that correct?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. That is correct.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     used by the Department of Justice to prevent the States of 
     Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode 
     Island, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington from 
     implementing State laws authorizing the use of medical 
     marijuana, and the Attorney General shall transfer from 
     available appropriations for the current fiscal year for the 
     Department of Justice any amounts that would have been used 
     for such purpose but for this section to ``Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, Salaries and Expenses'', for the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration to assist State and local law 
     enforcement with proper removal and disposal of hazardous 
     materials from illegal methamphetamine labs, including 
     funding for training, technical assistance, a container 
     program, and purchase of equipment to adequately remove and 
     store hazardous material.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 2006, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment was to reallocate funding 
in this bill away from the prosecution of the use of marijuana for 
medicinal purposes in those 11 States where either the legislature or 
the people of those States by referenda have decided that they would 
like to have marijuana use for medicinal purposes under the supervision 
of a licensed physician in those 11 States, to have it moved from there 
to the enforcement of methamphetamine violations.
  My understanding is that the chairman is going to insist on a point 
of order, saying that this is legislating on an appropriations bill. Am 
I correct about that?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has reserved a point of order.
  Mr. WOLF. I reserved the point of order.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I don't know why there would be a point of 
order against this amendment, because it seems to me that we have the 
ability to make these kinds of decisions now. This is not legislating 
on an appropriations bill. It is simply moving one appropriation for 
one particular purpose to a better purpose.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, regardless of how you have voted in the 
past, there are two critical developments since the last vote that make 
compelling arguments for a ``no'' vote on the Hinchey Amendment to the 
SSJC Appropriations bill. The Hinchey Amendment would deny law 
enforcement agencies Federal funds to enforce the Controlled Substances 
Act in those States where `medicinal' marijuana is legal under State 
law.
  First, the FDA in April of this year confirmed that there is no 
research to sustain the supposed ``medicinal value'' in smoked 
marijuana. On April 20, 2006, the FDA stated, ``A past evaluation by 
several Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies, 
including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and National Institute 
for Drug Abuse (NIDA), concluded that no sound scientific studies 
supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, 
and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of 
marijuana for general medical use.'' Furthermore, the ``FDA has not 
approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease indication.''
  Second, research from a 25-year longitudinal study by the 
Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Services showed that regular 
or heavy marijuana use was linked to a wide range of other illicit 
drugs and to a dependence or abuse of these other illicit drugs.
  The research concluded that ``following tight statistical controls, 
there is a clear tendency for those using cannabis to have higher rates 
of usage of other illicit drugs. This tendency is most evident for 
regular users of cannabis, and is even more marked in adolescents than 
in young adults.'' These researchers, using the most robust 
longitudinal database in the world, show what we have long suspected--
marijuana is a gateway to even more dangerous drugs of abuse.
  A handful of states have legalized smoked marijuana for medical 
claims. Not only are patients being given an ineffective, unapproved, 
and even harmful drug, but also one that is illegal under Federal law.
  Time and time again, research has demonstrated the harmful effects of 
marijuana. According to Dr. Nora Volkow, the Director of the National 
Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), marijuana ``can produce adverse 
physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral changes, and--contrary to 
popular belief--it can be addictive. Marijuana smoke, like cigarette 
smoke, can harm the lungs. The use of marijuana can impair short-term 
memory, verbal skills, and judgment and distort perception. It also may 
weaken the immune system and possibly increase a user's likelihood of 
developing cancer. Finally, the increasing use of marijuana by very 
young teens may have a profoundly negative effect upon their 
development.''
  It is of the utmost importance that law enforcement be able to 
protect this country from dangerous drug trafficking, including 
marijuana. Join us in opposing the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in any case, I respect the chairman's 
decision; and, with that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Justice may be used to prevent the States 
     of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, 
     Rhode Island, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington from 
     implementing State laws authorizing the use of medical 
     marijuana in those States.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member 
opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to do with two things: It has to do 
with compassion, compassion for people who are very seriously ill and/
or dying, and the ability of States in which those people live to 
provide means by which their suffering can be relieved.
  It also has to do with one other point, and that is the issue of 
States' rights, the ability of the States to determine how medical care 
will be regulated in those States.
  We have 11 States in our country, Mr. Chairman, that have determined 
that it is in the interests of the people of those States that they be 
allowed to use marijuana for medicinal purposes to alleviate the 
suffering from such things as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and multiple 
sclerosis: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode 
Island, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. However, the Federal 
Government has decided that they are going to intervene and prevent 
those States from carrying out the laws which were passed in two cases 
by the State legislatures and in nine cases by referenda by the people 
of those States.
  We will hear from the people who oppose this amendment that marijuana 
has something to do with a gateway drug. In other words, it introduces 
people to other drugs. This amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with 
that. This amendment has nothing to do with drug addiction. This 
amendment has nothing to do with the potential for drug addiction. This 
amendment simply has to do with the ability of States to relieve the 
suffering of their citizens without Federal intervention and the right 
of States to pass

[[Page H4736]]

laws regulating medical practice without Federal intervention. It is a 
very simple amendment, and it ought to be passed.
  Those people here who believe in small government should support it. 
Those people here who believe in the issue of States' rights ought to 
support it. And those people here who believe that State governments 
and the people in those governments have the right to take care of 
their citizens and alleviate their suffering, those people in this 
House ought to support this amendment as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind our guests in the gallery 
that demonstrations of either approval or disapproval are not 
appropriate.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 10 
minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Hinchey amendment.
  Let's be clear: Marijuana is not harmless, as some claim. It is a 
schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning it has no 
accepted medical use in treatment and has a high potential for abuse. 
In fact, marijuana continues to be the most widely abused drug in the 
United States.
  Those who anecdotally claim that marijuana has a medical benefit do 
not differentiate between THC and whole marijuana. Whole marijuana 
contains hundreds of chemicals, many of which are harmful to one's 
health. An evaluation by several Federal agencies concluded that no 
sound scientific studies supported marijuana's medical use, and smoking 
marijuana is not approved as a legitimate medical use by the FDA.
  The bottom line is, marijuana is an addictive substance that is 
linked to cancer and respiratory ailments and problems with the immune 
and reproductive system.
  Let me say as a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free 
America, marijuana is the drug that will tell whether or not someone is 
going to get on methamphetamines. It is the precursor, the gateway 
drug, for heroin use. As we continue to fight this battle against 
illegal drug use, this is the drug that gets people started.
  Anyone who is trying to send a message to our young people today 
should be embarrassed by having an amendment like this, because this is 
telling people that this is okay, that it is socially acceptable, that 
you can start here and it won't hurt you. And, in fact, medically, 
scientifically, that is dead wrong.
  The message we are sending to our children today is very strong. 
Whether we support legal use of marijuana as a precursor to 
methamphetamines, to heroin, this is the message we will be sending if 
we approve this. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the cosponsor of this 
amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment. Our amendment would prohibit any funds 
made available in this act to the Department of Justice from being used 
to prevent the implementation of legally passed State laws in those 11 
States authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
  Our coalition of freedom-minded Republicans and Democrats on this 
issue is based on compassion for those who are suffering, a commitment 
to personal liberty and a firm belief in the principles of federalism.

                              {time}  1645

  The use of marijuana to relieve the pain of victims of a wide variety 
of medical conditions is well known and increasingly documented in the 
media and in medical journals. For many of these people, medical 
science has not been able to relieve their pain.
  Just recently a friend of mine and a friend of many years passed 
away, Lyn Nofziger, and many of you here probably know him. He was 
Ronald Reagan's first press secretary. I went to see him after he got 
out of the hospital with his treatments for cancer.
  He had his good days and his bad days. I saw him about a week before 
he died. And I asked Lyn about it, and he said, yes, sometimes it is 
bad, and other times it is not, but I could not get myself to eat, and 
I had the pain no matter what they did for me.
  And I said, well, did you ever try that medical marijuana that we 
have been talking about and debating about? And he got a twinkle in his 
eye, and he said, yes, I did. And it brought my appetite back, and I 
slept like a baby. Do not tell me that we should have Federal law 
enforcement people come into a State where the people have voted to 
approve that if a doctor agrees and get in the way of Lyn Nofziger or 
anyone else who is suffering and use Federal money and Federal 
resources that should be going to fight crime in order to create that 
obstacle.
  That is a travesty. Individuals who live in the 11 States affected by 
the amendment have been granted by the voters of these States the legal 
right to use marijuana to alleviate their pain if a doctor agrees. If 
the voters have so voted and a doctor agrees, it is a travesty for the 
government to intercede, the Federal Government, allocating our scarce 
resources to fighting this, getting in the way of someone using 
something to alleviate their suffering.
  This is something which should be left to the States as American 
tradition dictates. Sandra Day O'Connor stated it best, and she stated 
that States should serve as a laboratory so that people can try certain 
new ideas out to see how they work.
  Well, the Federal Government should not get in the way of what is 
going on in these 11 States to see how this works. The most recent 
decision of the Supreme Court has thrown the ball into the hands of the 
U.S. Congress. Paul Stevens, Justice Paul Stevens, made it clear: the 
voices of the voters may one day be heard in the Halls of Congress on 
behalf of legalizing marijuana. Eleven States have already acted.
  I would hope you would all join us for the principles of federalism, 
compassion and individual liberty and not get in the way of the people 
who are suffering.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, we have people out there, not just Lyn 
Nofziger but others, and my mother suffered. I remember how she lost 
her appetite after suffering a debilitating disease in which she had to 
go through treatments.
  This is a travesty to use scarce Federal resources. Join this 
coalition of people who are Republicans and Democrats who believe in 
federalism, who believe in compassion and believe in personal liberty. 
Let doctors prescribe these things, not Federal Government bureaucrats.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the authors of this amendment. I simply 
want to say this: If I am terminally ill, it is not anybody's business 
on this floor how I handle the pain or the illness or the sickness 
associated with that illness.
  With all due respect to all of you, butt out. I did not enter this 
world with the permission of the Justice Department, and I am certainly 
not going to depart it by seeking their permission or that of any other 
authority.
  The Congress has no business telling people that they cannot manage 
their illness or their pain any way they need to. I would trust any 
doctor in the country before I trust some of the daffy ducks in this 
institution to decide what I am supposed to do if I am terminally ill.
  The idea that somehow this is a gateway that we are creating for a 
drug like meth is a joke. I detest meth. I have seen what it does. It 
is a plague on my district. It is especially horrendous in the midwest, 
and it is getting worse every day. That has nothing whatsoever to do 
with the management of pain and misery for people who are sick and who 
are dying.
  When is this Congress going to recognize that individuals in their 
private lives have a right to manage their problems as they see fit 
without the permission of the big guy in the White

[[Page H4737]]

House or the big guy in the Justice Department or any of the 
Lilliputians on this Congressional floor? Wake up.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
time and for the privilege to address this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard from the other Member from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham) that the Food and Drug Administration has classified marijuana, 
along with heroin, LSD, methamphetamine, hashish and a number of other 
drugs, as Schedule I drugs. That is because they carry a high potential 
for dangerous abuse.
  And so doctors in most States even prohibit them for being prescribed 
for medicinal purposes. That is a standard. That is the national 
standard. The issue was raised about States' rights. But no one has 
raised the issue about States' rights about the other drugs that are 
Schedule I drugs.
  But we do have a right, a constitutional right and an obligation to 
regulate drugs in America. The question really is, is marijuana among 
them? And it is. And so we would be seeking to, by this amendment, 
usurp that decision and change that standard.
  But with regard to the addictive nature of marijuana, I am looking at 
a study here that says that if adults started at a fairly young age, 
say by the time of 26 or older, they used marijuana before the age of 
15, 62 percent reported a lifetime cocaine use, 9 permanent reported 
lifetime heroin use, and 54 percent reported nonmedical use of 
psychotherapeutics. And this does not include methamphetamines, which 
is abused more than any of these drugs that I mentioned here.
  So this is a high use issue. It is also something that infringes upon 
or inhibits our ability and our reflexes with regard to driving. So, 
for example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports 
that marijuana use has been shown to impair driving performance. These 
things we know.
  Then with regard to the gentleman from California's statements about 
he could not, that Mr. Nofziger could not get himself to eat, if that 
is our issue, then let us focus on the synthetic THC that is now 
available. It is available in a drug by the name of Marinol, and it has 
been proven to be effective, especially dealing with cancer patients 
and with the nausea associated with the chemotherapy treatments and 
also with the appetite, that might help assisting the appetite with 
AIDS patients.
  There is a way that we can use the THC, and there is a way also that 
we can protect this country against that kind of Schedule I drug.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Four and a half minutes.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher-
Paul-Farr amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, every year we bring this amendment to the floor. So far 
it has never passed. Some may ask, well, why are we doing this again? 
Well, the answer is because of the statements that have been made 
already by Mr. Hinchey and Mr. Obey about compassion for people who are 
suffering.
  We offer this amendment for terminal cancer patients, for AIDS 
victims, for persons who suffer chronic pain. We offer this amendment 
not only to protect those people; we offer this amendment to protect 
these States that are progressive enough to provide alternative medical 
options to those who need it.
  So often this body insists on protecting the rights of States to 
define marriage. So often this body insists on protecting the rights of 
States to set abortion policies. So often this body insists on 
protecting the rights of States to determine education curricula and 
standards.
  But when it comes to protecting the rights of States to set medical 
scope of practice, this body balks. All of a sudden States no longer 
have the right to determine what is best for their citizens when it 
includes medical marijuana.
  The Hinchey amendment does not change Federal law. It does not change 
drug policy. It does protect States' rights. For those of you who come 
from States that do not have medical marijuana laws, nothing in this 
amendment will affect your State. Everything in your State remains 
status quo.
  For those of you who come from States that do have medical marijuana 
laws, very little in this amendment will impact your State. The only 
difference now is that your State will be able to implement its laws 
without little old ladies being busted by Federal cops. I support this 
amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a member of the committee.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this 
amendment. For 20 years, in State government, I worked on health 
issues. I chaired the health committee for a decade. I asked leaders 
and major medical groups; I asked leaders in the medical societies; and 
since I have been here I have asked leaders at NIH, do we need to 
legalize marijuana? And I have never had a positive answer.
  They said, we have more drugs than we need. We have more things that 
are out there for people that will perform better than marijuana. But 
what I tell you what I do not want to do, I do not want to support the 
belief that too many of our young people already have that marijuana is 
a harmless drug. I know better. I had young people work for me in my 
supermarket who I knew were using marijuana.
  And they used it for a period of years, folks. And they are not as 
sharp after years of marijuana use as they would have been. It dulls 
the brain. It holds back the growth. Brains are not mature until they 
are 25. And marijuana use has been proven to deter brain growth. A 
close friend of mine in Harrisburg who was a prominent State legislator 
was having dinner with me 25 years ago, and he was talking about 
Johnnie, who was attending Penn State, the brightest of three children.
  And all of a sudden, Johnnie in his junior year in college was not 
doing well. He could not figure out why. He visited him two or three 
weekends in a month, 3 months in a row, to try to figure out what was 
wrong with Johnnie. In his senior year of high school, Johnnie had 
started using marijuana.
  Johnnie lost his thrust for life. Johnnie lost the keen mind that God 
had given him. Marijuana stole him from the potential he had. Folks, if 
I thought the American public needed legal marijuana for pain and 
suffering, I would support it. We have more drugs than we need on the 
marketplace.
  Marijuana destroys young people's chances to have good lives. I have 
close friends and even relatives who are living less of a life than 
they would have if they had not spent years abusing marijuana. 
Marijuana is a dangerous drug that is not adequately respected by the 
young people of this country because they have been seduced by leaders 
in this country advocating that it is a perfect, wonderful drug.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for 
the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
   Mr. Chairman, I stand to support the Hinchey/Rohrabacher Amendment, 
an amendment to end federal raids on medical marijuana patients and 
providers in states where medical marijuana is legal.
  Despite marijuana's recognized therapeutic value, including a 
National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine report recommending 
its use in certain circumstances, federal law refuses to recognize its 
medicinal importance and safety.
  This amendment does not change the classification of marijuana as a 
Schedule I narcotic. It does not legalize marijuana, or stop law 
enforcement officials from prosecuting individuals for recreational use 
of marijuana. It does not require that states adopt laws protecting the 
medicinal use of marijuana. It simply extends the protections already 
provided at the state level in ten states to the federal level. It 
ensures that critically ill patients can find relief from nausea and 
pain without worrying that the federal government will prosecute them.
  The federal government should use its power to help terminally ill 
citizens, not arrest them. I strongly urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.

[[Page H4738]]

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have never been an 
advocate for drug testing for Members of Congress, but hearing that 
marijuana use can dull the brain makes me think maybe this is something 
that we ought to be checking into.
  I am always heightened in my support of an activity, an amendment, 
when those opposing will not argue it directly. We are not talking 
about 18-year-olds getting into methamphetamines. This is a very narrow 
amendment. It says, where a State has decided by its own democratic 
processes to legalize marijuana according to a doctor's prescription, 
we will not arrest people who try to do it federally.

                              {time}  1700

  Very few of the arguments have met that. The question of marijuana in 
general is not before us. This does not legalize marijuana. We have 
many drugs that can legally be prescribed that are far more behavior 
altering, far more addictive than marijuana has ever alleged to be.
  This is a question about whether or not we are going to reach into 
medical practice and say to medical practitioners whose States would 
allow them to do it that, because of cultural and other concerns about 
this drug, we ban its use when you might find it medically appropriate.
  This is, again, the time when I think the slogan of this House ought 
to be: We are not doctors; we just play them on C-SPAN.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
amendment. As a member of the medical community, I understand the 
importance of effectively treating and preventing pain.
  However, the medical use of smoked marijuana has been rejected by the 
American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society and other 
leading health care organizations.
  The concern is that marijuana smokers are exposing themselves to a 
crude and harmful drug delivery system.
  Marijuana smoke contains a variety of toxic chemicals that can cause 
damage and may even exacerbate the underlying medical condition.
  The Federal Government has provided money for research into the 
medicinal use of THC, which is believed to be the primary chemical 
component responsible for marijuana's psycho-pharmacological effects. I 
support that approach.
  As a result of such research, synthetic forms of THC have been 
available as an oral prescription for 20 years.
  Ultimately, inhaling marijuana smoke and tar are not effective 
treatments for medical conditions.
  For these reasons and primarily because of the opposition of leading 
health care organizations, I must rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, over the past months, we have all met with 
them. They live in our towns. They come to our offices. They come to 
the Hill every single year, and they come from all walks of life. They 
share with us their experience or the experiences of someone they 
loved, someone with epilepsy, glaucoma, cancer, AIDS or other chronic 
pain. Their stories touch our lives, and if only for a moment, we feel 
their misery.
  But unless we are affected personally or know somebody who is 
affected, after a few hours, we inevitably get caught up in something 
else. Today, we can actually do something that might improve their 
lives. We can stop prosecuting the use of medical marijuana in the 
States that legally permit it.
  The choice to use medical marijuana is mostly made out of medical 
necessity and the desire to get through the day with as much normalcy 
and strength as possible.
  This is the right thing to do for those who are sick, who are in pain 
and those who cannot keep a meal down. Let's not be bad politicians. 
Let's make smart decisions. Let's help these good people.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment. There has been a lot of talk 
about the Fraternal Order of Police and how we support our police. Here 
is a letter from the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck 
Canterbury, National President, saying, referring to the Hinchey 
amendment:

       Such an amendment threatens to cause a significant 
     disruptive effect on the combined efforts of State and local 
     law enforcement to reduce drug crime in every region of the 
     country. On behalf of the more than 324,000 members of the 
     Fraternal Order of Police, we urge its defeat.

  We talked a lot about the police and how we want to do this to 
support them. I think we should support the police here. I urge a 
strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and 
for, once again, his leadership on this important issue.
  Taxpayers dollars quite frankly should not be spent on sending 
seriously or terminally ill patients to jail. Their doctors, not 
Congress, should decide which drugs will work best. So I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and ensure patients' 
rights because that is what this is about, that patients' rights are 
upheld.
  This amendment does not encourage nor does it make legal the 
recreational use of marijuana. For example, Angel Raich, my constituent 
from Oakland, has been diagnosed with more than ten serious medical 
conditions, including inoperable brain tumors. She, and others who use 
medical marijuana, are simply trying to relieve their crushing pain 
while following the guidelines and the laws that their doctors and that 
their States have already established.
  So please pass this amendment. Patients deserve this. We should not 
send terminally ill patients or seriously ill patients to jail.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Chairman, the arguments that have been put forth against this 
amendment have nothing to do with this amendment. This amendment has 
nothing to do with legalizing marijuana. It has to do with two simple 
things: being compassionate for people who are suffering and dying 
under the lawful provisions of laws passed in their States, the 11 
States that have done so; and States' rights, the right of States to 
govern medical malpractice, not this Congress. This Congress should 
recognize States' rights and live up to the provisions of the 
Constitution and pass this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  For 5 years in the Senate, I was a staffer under Senator Hawkins, who 
chaired the Drug Policy Committee on the Senate side. I have served 
most of my time in the House on the Criminal Justice Drug Policy 
Subcommittee or one of its predecessors. I chaired Criminal Justice 
Drug Policy.
  I point that out to tell you, in the nearly two decades, I have never 
heard one credible source that said that there is a need for medical 
prescription and use of marijuana, not one credible source through 
dozens and dozens of hearings.
  In fact, we have heard the other side say, let the doctor decide, and 
in fact, the experts, and there is no bigger association than the 
American Medical Association of doctors. The National Multiple 
Sclerosis Society has opposed this. The American Glaucoma Society has 
opposed it. The American Academy of Ophthalmology and the American 
Cancer Society have all opposed this type of use.
  Millions of dollars have been spent in an effort to try to push this 
agenda, and we know Mr. Soros has spent millions.
  In 1979, Keith Stroup, the NORML founder, announced that NORML would 
be using the issue of medical marijuana as a red herring, not my term, 
red herring to give marijuana a good name.
  You have heard the testimony. In over half the instances of use of 
cocaine and marijuana, the gateway drug that is used, in fact, is 
marijuana.

[[Page H4739]]

  So this is a gateway opportunity to use and encourage the use of 
marijuana. In fact, early marijuana users are eight times more likely 
to use cocaine and 15 times more likely to use heroin and five times 
more likely to develop a need for treatment. That is according to our 
Office of National Drug Control Policy.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, this 15-
minute vote on the Hinchey amendment will be followed by 2-minute votes 
on the amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding Arthur Avenue, the 
amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding the Bronx Council, the 
amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding JARI, the amendment by Mr. 
Flake of Arizona regarding Fairmont State University, the amendment by 
Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding Kentucky Tourism, and the amendment by 
Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
  Again, the Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic 
vote after the first vote in this series.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163, 
noes 259, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 333]

                               AYES--163

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Campbell (CA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--259

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

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

                              {time}  1735

  Mr. SHAW, Ms. HART and Mr. MEEK of Florida changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SIMMONS, BURTON of Indiana and GILCHREST changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Skelton was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


  Honoring Congressman Jim Marshall on His Induction into the United 
                    States Army Rangers Hall of Fame

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I announce 
to our colleagues today that a gentleman, a veteran from Vietnam, a 
member of the Armed Services Committee, is receiving an extraordinary 
honor tomorrow. Tomorrow afternoon, the gentleman from Georgia, 
Congressman Jim Marshall, will be inducted into the United States Army 
Rangers Hall of Fame, and we are very proud of that.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 76, 
noes 345, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 334]

                                AYES--76

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Campbell (CA)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Ford
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Matheson
     McHenry

[[Page H4740]]


     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield

                               NOES--345

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Farr
     Gerlach
     Holden
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Poe
     Sherwood


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1742

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 74, 
noes 343, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 335]

                                AYES--74

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Ford
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Leach
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Westmoreland

                               NOES--343

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar

[[Page H4741]]


     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     DeGette
     Evans
     Farr
     Gerlach
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Neal (MA)
     Poe
     Sherwood
     Slaughter


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1746

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 63, 
noes 356, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 336]

                                AYES--63

     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Burton (IN)
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Ford
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Jindal
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kirk
     Leach
     Linder
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Westmoreland

                               NOES--356

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Farr
     Gerlach
     Holden
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Poe
     Pombo
     Sherwood
     Slaughter


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1750

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 70, 
noes 350, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 337]

                                AYES--70

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Cantor
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cooper
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Westmoreland

[[Page H4742]]



                               NOES--350

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Farr
     Gerlach
     Holden
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Poe
     Sherwood
     Slaughter


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1755

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 56, 
noes 363, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 338]

                                AYES--56

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cooper
     Deal (GA)
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Ford
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (MN)
     Linder
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Westmoreland

                               NOES--363

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)

[[Page H4743]]


     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Farr
     Gerlach
     Holden
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     King (IA)
     Poe
     Sherwood
     Slaughter


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1759

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


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145, 
noes 274, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 339]

                               AYES--145

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boswell
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kline
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Ramstad
     Renzi
     Rothman
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--274

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Farr
     Gerlach
     Holden
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Poe
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Slaughter


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1805

  Mr. WU and Mr. TOWNS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Pearce) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________