tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 8, 2012 8:00pm-1:00am EDT
>> thank you, madam speaker. this measure is not about undermining the americans with disability act. this measure is not about denying access. if it was i would be part of leading the charge to defend that access. and the americans with disability act. because when i was in college, i lost my eye sight. when i graduated from college i was blind. i've been denied a job because of my blindness. . i would defend every person's right to access and defend americans with disability act. but this proposal is about finding a reasonable solution rather than a dictate through the bureaucracy in washington. there seems to be a serious disconnect between the people
who are writing regulations and those that have to comply with them. portable lifts accomplish the same access and they are much easier to install and can be installed at lower costs. these lifts are much more costly to install and the net effect is that hotels and municipalities will close their swimming pool rather than comply with this new regulation. many hotels have already begun to comply by ordering portable lifts, making those available, but that money and effort will be wasted, because the department of justice has decided that only fixed lifts will meet the regulation. the problem here is that the bureaucrats who don't have to live with the consequences of the rules they write really don't care how much it costs small business owners. they just want to tell the people what to do.
our goal is not to deny access. it's to find a reasonable way for businesses to comply with this new regulation in a fair and reasonable manner that will ensure access to every american. madam speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. nadler: i rise to speak against an amendment added during committee markup of the commerce, justice and science appropriations bill, the one we have been talking about that would prevent the department of justice of enforcing regulations with regard to swimming pools under the a.d.a. since passage in 1990, congress has never acted to weaken the opportunity and access for our neighbors, friends, families and colleagues with disabilities.
today, this house is poised to strip the department of justice against certain enforceable rules. there was an aggressive lobbying campaign that misrepresented what the a.d.a. is and what the department of justice rules require. congress should not roll back reasonable, balanced and negotiated civil rights standards that have long enjoyed strong bipartisan support based on an alarming misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the a.d.a. and department of justice regulations. nor should we override a regulatory process that began under the administration of president bush and concluded after extensive public notice and comment by adopting the guidelines that the united states access board developed in 2004 during the george bush administration. certain members of the hotel industry have claimed that the regulations require all owners
to require fixed lifts and this is costly and burdensome and owners who can't afford it will have to shut down their pools or face penalties. these claims are false. as required by congress, the justice department has increased access to newly existing pools, rules that have been under development for almost 15 years. new pools must be built with either a sloped entry into the pool or a pool lift under these new rules. for existing pools, owners will have to do what is readily achievable based on the size and resource of the owner's business. if it is readily achievable which is defined as easily accomplished to be carried out, a business should take the same steps to improve an existing pool. this means that if a fixed lift can be installed easily and
inexpensively, it should be. if installing a fixed lift is too expensive or difficult, it is not legally required. the law does not impose one size fits all requirements. the law is quite flexible. now fixed lifts are superior to portable lifts because fixed lift provides a safe and more independent means of getting in and out of the people for a person with a disability. a fixed lift is available in every pool without staff to locate the lift and provide timely and safe installation while the dissabled person waits. this allows a person with a disability to swim whenever a pool is open, just like everybody else. while those pushing this amendment have raised concerns about lift safety, the united states actions board has no evidence from increased safety from pool lifts. the same measure is already in place such as prohibiting unserviced and this unnecessary
amendment will harm countless americans who rely upon the a.d.a. and have heard from organizations who oppose the legislation prohibiting d.o.j. from enforcing its legislation. i would like to include the letters, along with my statement in the record. opposition comes from organizations that work -- opposition to the amendment from the national septemberer of independent living, the association of university centers and disabilities, american association to name a few. a swimming coach in georgia said it has helped his son in georgia. and achieve goals and make the best of his disability. a dozen organizations cite
benefit opportunities for wounded service members. these americans paid a high price in service to their country and should be able to count on the a.d.a. before today, our commitment to the a.d.a. was a shared one. it would be unfortunate that were to change under the republican leadership in the house. i call upon my colleagues to ensure that this ill-advised amendment is not included in the bill for the president. these regulations which have not been imposed which the justice department has said it may be postponed are in the spirit of the a.d.a. and proper and well considered and ought not to be set aside by lobbying-driven amendments. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
>> thank you, madam speaker. i rise in opposition to this amendment. i rise in opposition because i know what it's like to live with and travel with a disabled person, my brother-in-law, very distinguished, retired lawyer, who actually was injured in a disk accident and is paralyzed from the waist down. mr. farr: i never had a full appreciation for the a.d.a. until i started living with him and realized when he said the a.d.a. was not a zone ordinance about construction, but it's a civil right that this congress enacted, a civil right. 22 years ago, thr congress enacted it and it was remarkable legislation and we have an access board who are not made up of bureaucrats but made up of
citizens who are appointed by the president -- i guess all by the president. and i watched because my brother-in-law was appointed to that board under president clinton. i have watched that board as they go through all kinds of issues dealing with people of disabilities, very thorough hearings, lots of discussions. and i'm just shocked that congress would think that we ought to take away an access. i'm sure these same debates were given when people said we shouldn't do curb cuts. they cost money and there is nobody standing on that curb that needs it. well, ladies and gentlemen, curb cuts make a big difference not just for people who are disabled, but for elderly people. and you and i are able-bodied persons but you never know when
you are going to be in the next accident. i think the statements that are made are right on. there is a lot of misinformation going on about the proposed regulation. i represent the tourism caucus. i'm the chair in a bipartisan caucus on tourism and a lot of my hotelers have said you can't do this, but there is an exemption in there for small hotels citing a pool lift is too expensive for them to buy it. they are exempted and allows hotelers to do either a permanent or portable. there is discussion here that it is mandatory. the disabled community is a big traveling community and there is a lot of money in that community. one of the hotels who is being extremely well suited for disabilities is the four seasons hotel and that is not a cheap hotel. there are hotelers out there who
want to reach this market. there are people who want to get access and we should never, never take away something that is so essential to quality of life. indeed, i think our role here is to protect the domestic tranquility of this and that is people with disabilities including our soldiers. i want to make sure we defeat this amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. schweikert: this is one of those moments that you have in congress where we are talking about completely different things and the reality that i live in. i represent scottsdale, arizona, one of the resort centers in the country. come visit us and it is a
wonderful place. a month ago i visited a resort and they have seven pools. and i'm walking through the resort with the manager, who i have known since high school and he is just looking at me with these huge eyes saying, have they lost their minds? first point, he points out to me, they have had a portable lift for a decade. and no one has ever asked for it. second point he made and he was emfatic on this, 20 years ago because of their tort liability, their insurance on their pools, they got rid of their diving boards. and now we're going to demand they build six structures up against a jacuzzi? i can't wait to see who is going to be monitoring the beer drinking and those leaping into a jacuzzi thinking it is a
swimming pool. anyone familiar with the term attractive nuisance. are you going to step up and say, we are going to provide you tort liability when someone jumps off and ends up in horrible shape because 20 years ago we made a point to remove these types of hazards from the sides of pools and jacuzzis. but the third thing he was just livid on the point saying, i have seven pools in my resort and barely making it today and you are telling me i'm going to grind through my concrete, my pool decking to build six fixed lifts near every pool in jacuzzi when never has asked for the portable one in 10 years. it's -- what's wonderful about the amendment if you actually read it and move away from some of the rhetoric is it makes it very clear, this is about
building permanent structures next to those pools and jacuzzis. if they're going to mandate a portable -- with the other caveat, ok, fine. live with that. we already have lots of experience with that. and that way you avoid the -- what is the proper legal term? attractive nuisance. not being burdenend with a law school education, not the cost, not the tearing up and not everything else that goes along with this, at some point, a love and respect to help our brothers and sisters, particularly those that have mobility issues, we are there for them and we want to help, but we also have to have some -- would it be rational? let's actually step up and deal with this rationale because i
feel that the law of unintended consequences, some of my resorts are going to close down pools and jacuzzis when there was a pragmatic solution which is embracing the portable lifts that every call i have made up and down scottsdale and as you know, we have resorts everywhere and never had a single manager call me back and say, yes, we are using our portable one. . >> did you just call the hotel owners? mr. schweikert: to yield back or take back my time. yeah, we actually had a whole meeting in my office with them. and actually had the whole discussion about both the attractive hazard of what happens when, you know, because of this we create the next paralyzed american, and they looked at me with their eyes and
say, we hadn't thought about that and we actually -- a portable, as long as that resort has that portable one, we get our need taken care of. there is that pragmatic reality -- >> so you're saying that the groups that have identified as being for these regulations, you convinced them to the contrary? mr. schweikert: no we sat down had, a wonderful conversation. i believe they left understanding how impractical what was happening here. also how there is a much more pragmatic, much more cost-effective and much safer solution for the community. mr. fattah: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the last i heard the paralyzed veterans -- mr. schweikert: look, i met with actual people from scotsdale with mobility issues so i met with real constituents that are real people, not some organization. mr. fattah: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. schweikert: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.
for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i want tone -- join my colleagues in speaking in favor of enforcement of americans with disabilities act regulations. particularly my colleague steny hoyer from maryland, one of the authors of the a.d.a. and i rise to oppose any efforts to strip the department of justice enforcement of these regulations. mr. holt: my friend from arizona is correct. it sounds as if we're in parallel universes talk about different things here -- talking about different things here but let me tell you what we are talking about. we are talking about equality of opportunity in america. yes, we want to do all we can to give all possible access to swimming. it is important for all sorts of
reasons. we have in this country more and more people with disabilities. veterans returning from afghanistan, people living to older ages, many people who can benefit greatly from access to swimming pools. and what we're talking about here is that principle of access , not just what it means for an individual with disabilities but what it means for the american ideal of equality of access. the regulation and the law itself talk about a standard of readily achievable steps, readily achievable. that's the key point here.
fixed lifts in a swimming pool, for example, are required only where installation is easy and expensive. the readily achievable standard has been the governing legal principle for increasing access to facilities since the a.d.a.'s passage 22 years ago. these particular regulations have gone through extensive review to be consist went that standard of readily achievable. for an existing pool, it means removing barriers to the extent that it is readily achievable to do so. now, some businesses complain that -- actually, let me continue on that point. you know, a small family-owned hotel, for example, does not have to take the same steps as a
large commercial hotel. and some businesses complain that, well, hardly anyone has ever used the access accommodations they've made. that's like saying, well, the public accommodation civil rights act knead needn't apply because an african-american or muslim hardly ever comes to this restaurant. we're talking about civil rights here, the american ideal of equal access for all. i could go over and over again what that -- what this regulation actually says. but let me ask unanimous consent to introduce in the record what the consortium for citizens with disabilities has said. they write in opposition to any
congressional effort to roll back or prevent enforcement of the justice department's regulations about swimming pool access for people with disabilities. the consortium for citizens with disability includes a myriad of organizations such as the american association for people with disabilities, the american foundation for the blind, the brain injury association of america, the national council on independent living, the national disability rights network, the national multiple cler hoe -- sclerosis society, the paralyzed veterans of america, i tell my colleague. these are just some of the organizations that say, this is an important principle, an important principle of civil rights. and, yes, also it will allow lots of individuals to have healthier lives. to be able to cope with their disabilities. i would also ask unanimous consent to include in the record a letter from the disability
rights education defense fund, where they too urge members of congress to oppose any effort to prevent using funds to enforce the americans with disabilities act regulations for greater access for people with disabilities to swimming pools. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave and the gentleman's time has expired. mr. holt: i thank the chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: i move to strike the last word -- mr. carter: he move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: i am the person who introduced this language. at the time i introduced it i started my conversation by saying, i am not opposed, in fact i am in favor of access to swimming facilities and hot tubbs and other bodies of water
by the disabled in this country. but the facts are in this case that, yes, this has been looked at for a long time and everybody recognizes the fact that access to swimming pools and possibly hot tubbs or therapeutic facilities is important for the people who are disabled. i agree. i agree with everything my colleagues have said on the other side of the aisle. but the purpose, sometimes when you're dealing with bureaucrats, you cannot get their attention to have a little bit of common sense and you have to get their attention. and the purpose behind this is to get the justice department to back off until they can listen to some common sense. my colleagues on this side of the aisle have tried to point out that what the justice department has said and has not been willing to clarify otherwise is regardless of what
the regulation, which was passed originally, says, their ruling in january of this year was that it will be a fixed facility. that means it has to be placed permanently by the side of the body of water. that means it would be placed permanently beside every hot tub, placed permanently beside every kiddy pool, placed beside every swimming pool that anybody has at any location. that would be a fixed device. i don't know how big this piece of device is, but i would assume it's taller than i am. because it has to lift someone and put them somewhere. and i also happen to know that there are 13-year-old kids around every swimming pool in the country that figure, if there's something that you can climb up on and dive off of, you're going to do it. so the swimming pool people,
both publicly and privately, let me tell you that lots of communications from public pool managers in my district say, we don't want to close our pool this summer, but they set a deadline we can't meet, they've required something that we cannot physically get because the manufacturers are not prepared to do it, and even though they're willing to push the deadline down the line, they're setting up a situation of danger which could easily be resolved by what we've been using already in many of the pools in our area of texas, that is a portable device that does exactly the same thing but when it is not in use it is moved away from the side of the pool to a safe place where it cannot -- someone cannot harm themselves. what if a child climbed up on the one fixed next to the hot tub which is three feet deep and dove into it? he may be stupid, but kids are stupid sometimes.
we would have another disabled person. and so the consequences of this, and the cost, are something that we should say, how about a little common sense, justice department? and ask the question, can we use a portable device? and so far they have not answered. because they wrote the last thing in january. they set the deadline of may 15 and extended it. and only one has answered to that question, i want everyone to have access to a swimming pool and i want the disabled to have a device that safely is able to locate them and that can safely be put away when there's no one in need of that device, so that nobody else can be hurt by false use of that device. this is not a -- i'm not against the disabled, nobody on our side of the aisle is, even though our colleagues seem to accuse us of that. but i started this conversation and my colleague on my committee
knows this, and i finish the conversation by saying, all i want is to have access and let the justice department say something besides fixed device so that we can go forward. if we can get that, we solve this issue. it's not about putting aside the a.d.a., it's not about being against the disabled,s about -- it's about common sense and the folks that have five pools can have a device set up around a safe place to be used to accommodate whoever needs this device. it's common sense, it's good judgment and it's a safety issue for children and nobody wants to deprive anybody of going swimming. so, to make this very clear, i think this is something that i agree with, my opponents on the other side of the aisle agree with, and we should be in agreement and bipartisan in trying to get a commonsense
resolution. i thank the gentlelady. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 53, line 15, section 207, the departments. section 208, none of the funds may be used for the purpose of transporting an individual who is a prison or pursuant to conviction. section 209, none of the funds may be used by federal prisons to purchase cable television services. section 210, none of the funds shall be obligated for any new or enhanced information technology program in excess of $100 million. section 211, the notification threshold shall apply to deviations from the amounts designated for specific activities. section 212, none of the funs may be used to plan for a
public-private competition under the office of management and budget circular a-76, for work performed by employees at of the bureau of prisons -- employees of the bureau of prisons. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hughesinger of michigan. strike section 212. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. huizenga: thank you, madam chair. i appreciate that. and i rise today in support of my amendment to strike section 212 of this bill, h.r. 5326. madam chair, congress should be taking steps to encourage the creation of more private sector jobs, not growing government. legislative provisions that prohibit, impede, interfere, obstruct encumber or delay crpting out of some of these opportunities or even require insourcing and require these things to be done are counterproductive to reducing the deficit, limiting the size of government and creating private sector jobs.
madam chair, i was one of the founding members of what has been dubbed the yellow pages caucus. a group of people that came to washington and said, hey, if the private sector can go out and do this, maybe we need to think about whether or not the government should be doing it and taking those opportunities away from those people who are advertising in the yellow pages or in the modern equivalent, on those google searches that might be on people's ipads. not only do federal agencies duplicate oftentimes private business, but many engage in unfair government competition with the private sector. this amendment would allow aen 76 competition within the bureau of prisons for the performance of commercial activities within the organization. . by allowing the private sector to compete, it forces the buyero of prisons to look a burro of prisons and see what it is
doing. these provisions force government to be more efficient. now what is an a-76? an a-76 is a circular or a letter that is produced by the office of management and budget and in this, it says that whenever possible and to achieve greater efficiency and productivity, the federal government should conduct competition between public agencies and the private sector to determine who should perform the work. we're going out and saying, hey, where does it make sense to do this? who can do it cheaper and deliver a better product? it requires the executive agencies to annually prepare lists of activities considered both commercial and inherently governmental. all we are saying is the bureau of prisons ought to be holding to the exact same requirements that all of the other departments and all the other
burros must do in the -- bureaus must do in the federal government. and it forces government to cut costs and increase efficiencies. the other interesting thing is, with this section 212, we wonder oftentimes what does section 212 do? it exempts the bureau of prisons from doing this activity. this makes no sense to me, madam chair. this makes no sense to me that we would take an organization like the bureau of prisons and say, don't worry about it, folks. we trust you. we think you are doing this as efficiently as possible. well, madam chair, i believe in that old i had yom that ronald reagan came up with, trust, but verify. i would like to see the bureau of prisons do that exact thing. i think they ought to go out and
demonstrate that they are doing these positions or these activities that they are. it's estimated, and this is from office of management and budget from july, 2003, page two of a report that they have, competitive sourcing conducting public-private competition in a reasonable and responsible manner is the title. they estimate that this active competition alone generates cost savings from 10% to 40%. what we are talking about, we can't even ask about or study how we can save the hard-working taxpayers of america these monies in the bureau of prisons. if it's good enough for the department of defense, if it's good enough for treasury and all these other departments in all these other areas, why can't it be an option to save the same dollars in the bureau of prisons? does it make sense to you?
it sure doesn't to me. during this period of economic uncertainty, americans are looking to congress for commonsense taxpayer solutions to reduce services that are provided by their federal government. this amendment allows our nation's free market system to fairly compete. the role of government should be to govern and not operate businesses inside the government. with that, i ask my colleagues to support my amendment to section 212. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. huizenga: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 55, line 17, section 213, no funds shall be available for the salary of any united states attorney assigned by the attorney general that exempts the united states attorney of the residencey requirements of title 28, united states code. section 214, at the discretion of the attorney general, any amounts that otherwise may be available up to 3% may be used by such office to provide training and technical assistance. section 215, the attorney general may waiver the requirements of title 1 of the omnibus crime control and safe streets act of 1968. section 216, section 20109-a of
title 2 of the violent crime control and law enforcement enforcement act of 1994 shall not apply to amounts made available by this or any other act. section 217, none of the funds may be used by a federal law enforcement officer to facilitate the transfer of an operable firearm. section 218, none of the funds may be used for implementing the requirement for public entities to provide a permanent means of accessible entry to pools and spas under the revised regulations of the americans with disabilities act of 1990. section 219, none of the funds may be used to report information to the department of justice regarding the sale of multiple rifles. this title may be cited as the department of justice appropriation act 2013. title 3, science, office of
science and technology policy, $5,850,000 national aeronautics and space administration science $5,095,000,000 to be made available until september 30, 2014. aeronautics to remain available until september 30, 2014. space technology, $632,532,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. exploration, $3 billion,900,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. space operations $3 billion 935 ,000,000 to be made available.
education $100 million to remain available until september 30, 2014. cross agency support $2,834 million to remain available until september 30, 2014. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. johnson of georgia, page 65, line 1, insert reduce by $26 million after the dollar amount. page 73, line 17, insert increase $73 million after the dollar amount. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. our country is emerging from the worst recession in generations. our friends and constituents are still out of work. millions of those we represent have been out of work for more
than 99 weeks. it's difficult for anyone who has not experienced long-term unemployment to fully understand the economic and emotional hardship caused by long-term unemployment. we all agree that we must help these americans who are too often unemployed due to no fault of their own. that's why i have serious concerns regarding the recent news reports about blatant discrimination against the unemployed. according to news reports, employers are posting job advertisements, stating, quote, must be be currently employed, unquote, or, quote, no unemployed candidates will be considered at all, unquote. this, madam speaker, is unacceptable. a policy where employers discriminate against the unemployed is unfair, unreasonable and callously ignores the effects of the
recession on millions of highly qualified workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own. such a policy also disproportionately hurts minorities as we suffer from high unemployment rates. if this trend of employers discriminating against the unemployed continues, it will only prolong the suffering of people victimized by the unemployment crisis. discriminating against the unemployed will not help america on its path to economic recovery. my amendment is simple, it will increase funding for the equal employment opportunity commission through the president's request level so the commission can adequately investigate discrimination against the unemployed and other victims of discriminatory hiring practices. my amendment is supported by the
national employment law project, the leadership conference on civil rights, the american federation of government employees, the asian-american justice senlter, the american association of university women, the naacp legal defense and educational fund. this amendment is just common sense. and i ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment. with these funds, the commission will be able to more effectively fight discriminatory hiring practices. we can and will debate the value of different job creation proposals, but ending discrimination against the unemployed is beyond debate. the unemployed is a status that should not disqualify anyone from a job. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to provide a
needed boost to millions of americans. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: strike the requisite number of words. chairman the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the bill includes $7 million increase for the e.e.o.c. which will allow the agency to make progress in addressing backlog in addressing discrimination complaints. and in the context of a reduced allocation which many agencies account in this bill have been level funded or even cut, that $7 million increase a substantial show of support. and lastly and i'm not going into detail, this again cuts nasa by $26 million. nasa has been gradly being cut
down and -- gradually being cut down and down. i would ask for a no vote on the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut rise? ms. delauro: i move to strike the last word and i rise in support of the amendment offered. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in support of the amendment being offered by my colleague from georgia, mr. johnson. i rise in support of this amendment to restore funding for the equal employment opportunity commission to the president's budget request level. we all know that while we have had 26 straight months of private sector job growth, we are still facing a very tough economy right now. the unemployment rate is still high at over 8% and more than five million americans have been out of work for more than six months. but now the deck is stacked even further against them.
companies across the country have begun to require current employment to be considered for available positions. and these discriminatory practices are eliminating employment opportunities. very simply stated, what has happened here is if you are unemployed, what you are being told is you need not apply for the job for a job. it is really incredulous to think about in this economy today people looking at a job, want to work and are being told that since you don't have a job, we aren't going to give you an opportunity to apply for a job. no one is saying give the person the job but at least level the playing field and let someone apply for the job because they are unemployed and if they are unemployed.
a survey, four of the top research, careerbuilding.com, monster.com and crationlist.com found job ads that specify that job applicants must be currently employed and no one who is unemployed will be considered. my god, when did we deny opportunity for people to make their way in the united states of america? it is unjust, it's unfair for employers to discriminate against those looking for work and we need to fully fund equal employment opportunity commission. all americans regardless of their employment status should have the same opportunities for employment. and that is why we need to make sure that the equal employment opportunity commission has the necessary funding to investigate
and to fight discrimination against the unemployed. i urge my colleagues, join us in standing up for the millions of qualified americans who want to work again, but who are being denied that opportunity, being denied the opportunity to find a good job and the chance to find that good job. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and i yield back. . the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. johnson: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wolf: i ask for a recorded vote. the yeas and nays.
the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 65, line 3, construction and environmental compliance and restoration, $598 million to remain available until september 30, 2018. office of inspector general, $38 million of which $500,000 shall remain available until september 30, 2014. administrative provisions, funds for announced prizes shall remain available until the prize claimed or offer is withdrawn. not to exceed 5% of any appropriation for the national aeronautics and space administration may be transferred between such appropriations but no such appropriation shall be increased by more than 10%. section 1105 of the national
aeronautics and space administration authorization act of 2010 is amended. the national aeronautics and space administration shall submit a spending plan to the committees and the senate within 45 days after the enactment of this act. section 30102-c of title 51, united states code, is amended. national science foundation, research and related activities, $5,942,693,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona. page 68, line 14, after the dollar amount insert, reduced by $1,09,453,000. page 69, line 8, after the
dollar amount, insert, reduced by $29,320,000. page 69, line 19, after the dollar amount insert, reduced by -- mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to dispose of the reading. the chair: the clerk will suspend. without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: thank you, madam chair. this amendment would return national science foundation funding to its pre-stimulus level and would save the taxpayers about $1.2 billion. just before voting against the stimulus bill a while ago, i stood in this same chamber and stated what i thought was pretty obvious at that time. that the only thing that this stimulus bill would stimulate is more spending later and i think we have found that to be the case. leave it to the n.s.f., an agency that dolls out billions of dollars testing theories, to prove me right on this. in the four years leading up to the stimulus bill, funding for the n.s.f. averaged more than
$5.7 billion. that's not exactly a drop in the bucket, even by washington standards. by comparison in the four years since the stimulus bill passed n.s.f. averaged spending has climbed 31% to a staggering $7.6 billion. for whatever reason, rather than draw down from this inflated level, congress appeared -- appears content to maintain it. the bill before us today funds the n.s.f. at 7.-- $7.3 billion for fiscal year 2013, that's $300 million more than last year. while i acknowledge that the n.s.f. does some noble work, it also has drawn its fair share of criticism. noticeably there was a recent investigation by our colleague in the senate. he identified $3 billion in miss management by the agency -- mismanagement by the agency. the report uncovered a lot of highly questionable research projects that would be laughable if the taxpayers weren't paying the tab.
just a few of them here. $755,000 to find out how rumors start. again, $755,000 to find out how rumors start. $315,000 to answer if playing farmville on facebook helps people make friends. and then there's the infamous $5 59,000 for a project to have shrimp run on a tread mill to. me that hardly sounds like justification to give the n.s.f. more money. rather congress ought to make the necessary commonsense cuts to programs like the n.s.f. that have been far too long bloated from the stimulus legislation. this amendment would employ reasonable approach to do that. it would simply reduce n.s.f. funding to the highest pre-stimulus level of $6 billion.
this would save the taxpayers, again, more than $1 billion. i think we have to remember that this discretionary budget that we are dealing with this year will do 12 appropriation bills for somewhere just over $1 trillion. our deficit is more than that. meaning that everything we consider in our process this year, the appropriations process, is money we are borrowing from our kids and our grandkids. when that is the case, i think that we need to be a little more prudent about the programs that we increase funding for. i don't think there's a justification to increase funding for the national science foundation this year and when you look back to 2008, which is where this would bring us back to if this amendment passes. as i've said before, that wasn't the year where "grapes of wrath" music was exactly playing in the background. that was the year that we spent a lot of money. but we're spending more now,
even given the current deficit that we're running, and the current debt that we piled up. so i would urge support for the passage of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman cannot reserve the balance of his time. the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fattah: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i agree with my colleague from arizona about some of the issues related to trade embargos with neighboring countries. in this matter i absolutely oppose him. now, he said that the national science foundation, we should cut it, we should cut it to some mathematical certainty to the 2008 number. let me just take a minute because i want the house to ac without information. this is the premier science research agency in the world.
it is not the only one. we are not shadow boxing with ourselves. we have a country of 309 million people. singapore, which is a country of 4.8 million, less than five million people, probably less people than the phoenix area alone, invest some $7 billion in their national science foundation. they're stealing talent from us today. hide away some of our top cancer researchers and scientist, right? china, a much larger country, was built over the last years. 100 science-only universities. the nation that leads in innovation and science will lead the war economically and militarily. the notion that we can unilaterally retreat in terms of investment and the development of future generations of scientists, now, the gentleman and i agreed in committee that
when we have non-native students here, who are foreigners, that are in school here who get degrees, we should invite them to stay. if we follow through with his cut to the national science foundation, what we're saying to american-born students, is if you're pursuing degrees in the hard sciences, that somehow we're going to cut the legs from under you. i think this works across purposes. the idea that we would retreat in any respect in terms of scientific research should be rejected by this house if what we're trying to do is to ensure america's global leadership. now, if this is a math exercise we should just zero out the national science foundation. if we're just trying to save money, then we're zeroed out. if we're frying -- trying to lead the war, as we have, in science, then we have to make these investments. we should even do more, i thank the chairman for where he set
the bar at and i think the house on a bipartisan basis rejects this notion that we should cede to our economic competitors scientific superiority for our children and grandchildren and their generations that will follow. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wolf: strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i rise in opposition. i want to thank the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. he's a good member and very consistent in trying to cut. but i rise in opposition to this amendment which would reduce, reduce n.s.f. funding by $1.2 billion from the levels provided in the bill. this amendment challenges broad longstanding bipartisan agreement on the needs to prioritize federal investments in basic research, math and science and physics and chemistry and biology. in order that america can be number one.
this agreement is based on strong and unambiguous links between investment in research and development and growth in employment and productivity and g.d.p. this link has been documented repeatedly by expert researchers, economists and analysts working in administrations and congressional majorities in both parties as well as private and nonprofit entities. the link is also well known and understood internationally, where major foreign competitors, including the european union, china and south korea, are investing strongly, are investing much higher at a much higher level than we are, on a much higher level than we are in research in the hopes of producing or retracting -- attracting high-value economic activity. we have already lost a good deal of competitive advantage that we previously held over those countries. and if we failed to keep pace with them in research and development, our situation will only worsen. unfortunately this amendment would contribute to precisely
that scenario by not only eliminating any potential growth in n.s.f. basic research next year but actually reducing basic research expenditures by nearly $1 billion. as a father of five kids, my wife and i, we have 16 grandkids, i want the 21st century to be the american century and not the chinese century. i urge strongly, i urge a no vote for this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the amendment will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 69, line 1,
major research equipment and facilities construction, $196,170,000. education and human resources, $875,610,000, to remain available until september 30, 2014. agency operations and word management, $299,400,000. office of the national science board, $4,440,000. office of inspector general, $14,200,000 of which $400,000 shall remain available until september 30, 2014. administrative provision, not to exceed 5% of any appropriation for the national science foundation may be transferred between such appropriations but no such appropriation shall be increased by more than 15%. title 4, related agencies, commission on civil rights, salaries and expenses,
$9,193,000. equal employment opportunity commission, salaries and expenses, $366,568,000. international trade commission, salaries and expenses, $83 million. legal services corporation, payment to the legal services corporation, $328 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. westmoreland of georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. westmoreland: my amendment is to reduce funding for the legal services corporation in fiscal year 2013 c.j.s. appropriations bill by $100 million, bringing the funding down to only $200 million for
f.y. 2013. the $128 million would be removed to the spend regular ducks account for deficit reduction. the main focus of the legal services corporation, at least in the eyes of every farmer, rancher, poultry producer iffer met with, is to harass those in the agricultural business. some examples of this unwarranted harassment includes filing surprise lawsuits against farmers for problems found relating to housing and transportation, payment issues, related to work visas and visa applications, border crossing fees, etc., all while allowing the -- without allowing the migrant worker to attempt arbitration. they solicit clients by trespassing on farmland and
waiting outside wal-mart stores and informing the workers if they sue their employer for even though most minor issue, they receive monetary settlements. these suits cost our farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year and in some cases cause financial ruin. in one specific case in georgia, who did not want to mention his name for fear of retribution, one farm for the 2008, his cost alone in legal fees was $525,000. furthermore, federal l.s.c. funding is redun cant. according to a 2008 report and i only use the 2008 report because there's not been a comp rehence i have report since 2008, the center for justice, law, and society at george mason university, the total state, county, and local expenditures for indigent expenditure that same year was
$4.8 million. other groups received millions that year. combined with almost $300 million in funds congress appropriated to the legal services corporation in 2008 the total amount dedicated to indigent defense services that year was almost $5.7 billion. the american taxpayers don't want their money wasted on an organization like this our agricultural community cannot afford to keep fighting the frivolous lawsuits that the legal services corporation has filed, and we cannot afford to keep funding them in the current budget climate. local legal services programs supplement the legal services corporation grants with funds from a variety of government and private sources.
this is not the only source of funding. nonl.s.c. funding sources include state and local grants, some interests on lawyers trust account programs, federal programs such as title 20, social services block grant, the older americans act, the violence against women act and the community development block grants and private grants from entities such as the united way foundation's national, state and local bar associations. in addition, private attorneys accept referrals to provide legal services to the poor primarily through the legal services corporations funded pro bono programs. the l.s.c. does not provide legaler is sis -- services directly. rather it funds local legal services providers referred to as grantees. these may include nonprofit organizations that have as a purpose the provision of legal assistance to eligible clients, private attorneys, groups of
private attorneys, state and local governments and certain substate liegal planning and coordination agencies. in its f.y. 1996 budget resolution, the house assumed a three-year phase out of the legal services corporation recommending appropriations of $278 million. here's what the budget report said. too often lawyers funded through federal legal service consider corporation grants have focused on political causes and class action lawsuits rather than helping poor americans solve their legal problems. a phase out of federal funding for the l.s.c. will not eliminate free legal aid to the poor, state and local governments, bar associations and other organizations already provide substantial legal aid to the poor. so for that, i think that this is a good reduction to start to eliminate the funding and i hope that we can pass this amendment and further the
reductions. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: the bill we're considering tonight provides $378 million for legal services, a reduction to the 2006 level. almost $100 million below f.c. 2010 level and we are $74 million below the request by the administration. l.s.c. helps many people. last year 2.3 million people were provided assistance in more than 3 -- and more than 300,000 family law cases, 105,000 domestic violence case, thousands of veterans benefits cases and 25,000 unemployment cases and 20,000 foreclosure cases. these proposed cuts would
result in 400,000 fewer people served nationwide, 160,000 fewer cases closed. this includes returning veterans seeking benefits, elderly victims of foreclosure, the elderly have been taken advantage of in so many cases, women seeking safety for themselves and for their children from domestic violence. i understand that there are some concerns about l.s.c. funded programs. our committee has carried numerous restrictions on political activity by the l.s.c. grantees to include, on lobbying, abortion litigation, class action lawsuits, and these restrictions cover both l.s.c. funds as well as private funds. the administration proposed to eliminate several of these restrictions but the house bill does not. the committee has conducted vigorous oversight over the l.s.c. in march, we heard testimony from a sheep herder
who has concerns about the l.s.c. grantee violating restrictions. we have included language directing l.s.c. to vigorously enforce the restrictions on political activity. wherever there is any political activity, we're going to shut it down. we are facing an extremely difficult time and i think many poor people would be hurt, as a result of that, i ask for a no vote on the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fattah: i rise to join the chairman in opposing the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman move to strike the last word? mr. fattah: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fattah: thank you, mr. chairman. under our constitution, the idea that in a land of law, that we would deny people an opportunity to have representation as they seek redress, we have thousands of veterans who have returned home after service who have faced
foreclosures and went to the legal services corporation to seek redress to hold on to their homes. we've had women who have been faced with abuse, need restraining orders and other types of assistance who use legal services. three out of four of the clients for legal services are women. who are seeking an opportunity through a court of law to gain their rights and to deny them this opportunity in a situation where we are already underfunding legal services, to zero it out in terms of federal support makes no real sense except if you think poor people have too much act stose quality legal representation. or as some would suggest they need less in food stamps or job training or affordable housing. there seems to be some condemnation that poor people have it going too well for them
in our country than what they need is some kind of opportunity to pursue liberty without any kind of assistance or hand up. so i'm opposed to this amendment, legal services is one of the proudest accomplishments of a republican administration. but we come to a day where for some reason there seems to be some partisan approach to this matter. in truth, i think all of us should hope that people throughout the country could have access to lawyers when they are in need of them because our system requires a legal representation in a court of law, not for democrats or republican, but for americans, seeking to have their case heard. so i hope that we reject this amendment and i think the house will reject it. because even in a republican majority house, i think there's an understanding that in our constitution, not having access
to the courts really in some ways trips away people's opportunity to truly be an rn -- to be an american and for america to live up to its ideals. the chair: the gentleman yield back his time? mr. fattah: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> move strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> it was always understood that the legal services corporation was a bipartisan effort. in other words, we understood the need for it and as the chairman said, we understood the need to protect this program. mr. serrano: there were always discussions as to how much money we should allocate, but there was never a desire to get rid of it. there was even discussion
tonight, not only of what a waste of money this program is, but also perhaps doing away with it totally this really strikes at something much more deeper than just this particular amendment, and it is, as mr. fattah has said, where are we going when we believe that services as essential as legal services should not be made available to people who cannot afford any other access? and we keep mentioning this and people think that it's -- that maybe some of us are trying to be funny, that richard nixon understood then the need for this program to exist and president nickson understood the need for it to grow to a point where it could be that access point for people. so i just hope that both mr.
fattah and i are correct that this will not get the support that some people think it will get, that in fact this amendment will be defeated and that the best -- one of the best messages we can send tonight as we deliberate is that in the desire to cut the budget, that we can cannot just throw away -- that we can not just throw away every gain we made but keep this program. this is one they have most important programs we have and we should maintain it. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. westmoreland -- mr. broun: i appreciate what my dear friend and colleague from georgia is doing and i yield to mr. westmoreland. mr. westmoreland: i thank my colleague for yielding. i want to again emphasize that according to a 2008 report, by the center for justice, law,
and society, at george mason university, the total state, county, and local expenditures for indigent defense services, that same year, was almost. $4.5 billion. federal defender organizations which also use federal funds for defense services, received an additional $849 million for the same purpose that year. combined with almost $351 million in funds that the congress appropriated that year, it brings the total to $5.7 billion. of that $5.7 billion total, only 6.1% was appropriated by congress. assuming total nonlegal services corporation funding for indigent defense services, not increased since then, my
amendment to reduce the agency by $128 million down to $200 million would result in a $2 -- would result in a 2.5% decrease in overall indigent defense service funding. reducing the legal services corporation funding to $200 million, as my amendment would do, would reduce overall c.j.s. funding by .0039%. mr. chairman, if we can't cut .0039%, then we're going to have a lot bigger problems on our hands at the end of the day. with that, i yield back my time. mr. broun: reclaiming my time, i appreciate my colleague's amendmenten this, it makes sense, it's a min us kuhl cut. congress needs to face the fact that america's broke. we don't have money to keep spending as both parties are guilty of spending. . spending money that we
don't have that eventually i go go to have to be paid for by our grandchildren's children. we just have to stop the spending addition we have here in washington. i have done addiction medicine and there is a saying, if there is no denial, there is no addiction. but there is denial in this congress. fl is denial that we have a fiscal crisis as a nation. this is a miniscule cut, not much at all and i support the gentleman's amendment. and we can pass this minimal cut in this program. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i move to strike the last word. mr. scott: there is a difference in indigent legal representation
in criminal cases and civil cases. the criminal defense is required by the constitution that you have to provide that and whatever it costs, the defendant is entitled to representation. in civil court, you don't have that technical requirement. some of the cases that they need for those who cannot afford attorneys, deal with housing, family law, divorce, child custody, consumer ripoffs, health care, things where you actually need representation that legal aid provides. they cannot meet the needs of their demands right now. most legal aid programs, as the chairman, the gentleman from virginia said, most turn down a lot more than they can take. and because of the recession, the demand is much higher than it has been in the past.
when you talk about life without remedies are no rights at all and when it depends on the generosity of a few pro bono attorneys we are violating our democratic values. as my colleague mentioned, federal funding of -- federal funding is down and another traditional funding for legal aid is also way down because interest rates are at historic lows. mr. chairman, we should support our democratic principles and support legal aid services and oppose this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. roe: i rise and move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. roe: -- mr. cohen: i got a notice that this amendment was here and i knew it was coming but i find it
shocking. in these economic times, there is more of a need for legal services than there has ever been a need for legal services. there has been more people economically hurt because of this economy who haven't been able to get jobs and we haven't passioned a transportation bill to put people to work or a jobs bill to put people to work. when they are economically deprived they are more likely to have domestic violence in their homes. they are more likely to be behind in their payments on their house and problems with mortgage and need legal aid. more people are in need of help than ever before and yet we are taking legal services away from poor people who are the purple hearts, the victims of this recession/depression, whichever we are having. and this is just hard to fathom.
it's unfair, it's unwise. it violates every principle that i can conjure up and imagine. what you do to the least of these you do unto to me. you take victims of domestic violence and take away the opportunity to get legal representation, that is un-american. you have a right to legal representation in a criminal case because of the constitution. in a civil case, it's really up to this congress to provide funds for legal services corporation to give people that opportunity. and while there's no constitutional amendment, we have the words of supreme court justice black who says there can be no equal justice for a trial a man gets for the amount of money he has or the type of representation in essence. and if you can't get representation, you aren't going to have any chance to win in court and justice should be blind. people should have an opportunity to go to court
particularly for economic distress and we are seeing more and more of that. slashing funds from legal services is the wrong thing to do. it hurts the poorest. there was a group that met out here in statuary hall, come play with me and come play with me was saying that we need to have the values that religion has and they should be a part of this congress. this should be a separation of church and state, no question about it. but there should be values that are in the judeo christian heritage which goes to the muslim heritage which is we care for those who are at the bottom and we give them a hand up and it's not the wealthy we care about but the poor we want to give help. this is the type of situation with legal services where we need to help people and we need to call on the values that we have been taught from generation
into generation and put them into effect and not in statuary hall when the christian broadcasting is putting them on television. and this legal services amendment where we have a chance to act because you are helping people who are in distress and need help and fair and just opportunities that legal services corporation can provide. i know these are tough budgetary times, but this is not the place or the people to cut. i would ask that we not do this. i appreciate the time and i yield back the balance. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia mr. westmoreland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from georgia. mr. westmoreland: i would like to ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. >> i have an amendment at the desk. chearment the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: page 74, lines 13 through 19, insert reduced to zero dollars. line 10 after the dollar amount insert increased by $328 million. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized on his amendment. mr. scott: i rise to strike funding to the legal services corporation. any party in congress felt that this agency was important enough to re-authorize it. that's just the facts. since 1980, congress has been appropriating the legal services corporation an average of $400 million a year while at the same time again deeming it unworthy of re-authorization. why is congress not felt
compelled to re-authorize the legal services corporation? because it has become so far removed from its original intent, which is to provide attorneys for the poor. in 1975, congress created the legal services corporation. legal assistance to the poor in civil matters. currently, they provide less than 6% of the legal-based services in this country. today the states, bar associations provide the pro bono legal services to the poor. legal services corporation has in effect become bounty hunters which attack farmers and other employers. instead of representing the needy, they focus their attention on another activity, actively lobbying even though it is against the rules for their big government priorities. 15 years ago, senator phil graham explained his opposition to the program by saying they
are advocates for the existing welfare buyer buyer and while they have the right to do it, they don't have the right to do it with taxpayer funds. every phone book has plenty of attorneys that would be happy to take any good case on a contingency fee. it was found that legal services corporation instead of spending your taxpayer dollars, purchased, and i quote, a decorated natural stonewall, more than 100 casino hotel rooms, limo and air fare rather than providing the services. legal services corporation has been poor stewards of taxpayer dollars and the constituency they were to serve. tough decisions need to be made. this is not one of them. certainly there is an attorney that will take any legitimate case that any citizen of this
country has whether they be poor or not. legal services corporation is duplicative, none-essential and not authorized and i urge my colleagues to defund it completely. i yield my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized? mr. fattah: i would hope the house would handle this amendment appropriately. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: i rise in opposition. the arguments have been made to the gentleman from georgia and the same argument would hold true here. and let me say one other thing. if any member has any information with regard to lobbying or any violation of law, i hope they'll call because we have made it clear that the committee carries numerous restriction on political
activity including lobbying, abortion litigation and class action lawsuits and they cover the funds as well as the private funds. so if anybody has any information on either side, we will hold a public hearing and deal with the issue. but based on -- this zeros it out and i rise in opposition to the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. scott: suggestion has been made that we depend on volunteer attorneys. we don't ask for physicians to volunteer and don't depend on volunteer home builders or grossers are teachers and we shouldn't depend by asking only volunteers to meet the needs. there are volunteer attorneys who volunteer a lot of time but when it comes to essential
services, we shouldn't depend on volunteers and i would hope to defeat this amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: i would like a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. clerk will read. the clerk: page 75, line 8, legal services corporation, none of the funds appropriated to the legal services cormings shall be expended to any of the provisions of section 501, 502, 503, 504, 504 and 005. section and the judiciary and related agencies appropriation act 1996 is amended.
marine mammal commission, salaries and expenses $3, 025,000,000 >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia, insert reduced by $181,500 after the dollar amount. the chair: the gentleman is recognized is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. broun: my amendment will reduce the salaries and expenses of the marine mammal commission by just 6%. the underlying bill is suggesting that congress allot the same amount of federal funding for the marine mammal commission as last year, more than $3 million, when in fact every other office on capitol hill endured a 6% cut just this year. it seems only fair that in the midst of our current economic
crisis that we should ask federal commissions without any extreme need or urgent purposes to bear the same reductions. i believe that the marine mammal commission falls under this criteria and that it should be able to find 6% worth of savings if they come through every corner of their budget. . we reduced the budget in our offices by much more than this i think the marine ma'amal commission can trim their budget by 6%. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment that would save nearly $200,000. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman -- mr. wolf: i strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i support the amendment and urge adoption. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from
pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i support the amendment and hopefully he'll withdraw some of his other ones. the chair: the question is on the amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise in >> i ask the gentleman to yield. the chair: does the gentleman move to strike the last word? mr. cohen: yes. do you know if the marine ma'amal commission has anything to do with the dolphins that we use for security? mr. broun: you may be correct on that. mr. cohen: so the dolphins save us in terms of security, and save human lives. you're talking about $200,000, and the cost of one seal, a seal in the united states navy is worth a whole lot more than $200,000.
i'd rather the dolphins be understood and trained and able to do that security work and save us. they are marine drones and they are protecting our country and saving human lives. that's why i say this is penny-wise and pound-pool foolish. mr. broun: will the gentleman yield? mr. cohen: i yield. mr. broun: what this is going to do is just cut expenses and salary of the commission itself. it doesn't reduce the funding of the dolphin program. certainly, there are some things that the marine ma'amal condition can continue doing. this is not going to hurt those programs. i urbling adoption of the amendment. mr. cohen: i thank the gentleman for his response and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i move to strike the
requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise to respectfully request to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from virginia, chairman wolf. the chair: the gentleman controls the time. >> i've been a strong supporter of science education programs, i greatly appreciate the strong funding levels for these programs in this bill. especially n.s.f. also, chairman wolf, your eloquent defense of n.s.f. on the floor here a short time ago. i'd specific lick -- specifically like to thank you for inviting me to testify before the c.j.f. panel earlier this year in order to share my support for the n.s.f. corps which provides opportunities to learn from and collaborate with entrepreneurs to increase the likelihood that their research can be turned into new buckets. this program will turn our
investments in science and research into american innovation and american jobs. mr. lipinski: it will produce enormous value for the relatively small cost of $19 million. the only results promising are the first 21 grantees, 19 are pursuing commercialization of their technology and hopefully future american jobs. chairman wolf, i understand this bill does not provide line items for n.s.f. funding but i hope you agree the icore funding will help make the best use of american research funding to boost american innovation and job growth. i yield to the chairman. mr. wolf: thank you. i thank the gentleman for his support for federal science agencies and his advocacy for programs like this one which ensures that taxpayer research and investment provide opportunities in terms of jobs and import and export
opportunities. i will be happy to work with the gentleman to ensure that icore and related efforts receive the appropriate amount of support. mr. lipinski: reclaiming my time, i thank the gentleman for his response and his commitment to this program and i look forward to working with you on the -- on ensuring success of the icore program and increases in n.s.f. and science funding as we lead the way to american innovation and american jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the clerk will e-- will read. the clerk: page 76, line 9, office of the united states trade representative, salaries and expenses. $51,251,000. state justice institute salaries and expenses, $5,121,000, of which $500,000 shall remain available until september 30, 2014.
title 5, general provision, section 501, no part of any appropriation shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by the congress. section 502, no part of any appropriation shall remain available for obligation unless expressly so provided herein. section 4503, expenditure of any appropriation for any consulting service shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public record. section 504, if any provision of this act shall be invalid be held invalid, the remainder of the act shall not be held affected. section 5005, nub of the funds that remain available for obligations shall be rable for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds that creates or initiatives a -- initiates a new program. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk.
the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five, printed in the congressional record, offer by mr. sessions of texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sessions: tonight i offer an amendment which would strike provision 6 of section 505 of the legislation which would impose a moratorium on contracting out activities currently performed by federal employees. these challenging economic times require congress to not only reassess the sides and scope of the federal government but i think it's important to make better stewardship of taxpayer dollars and to give the government an opportunity to get the best dollar for and on behalf of the american taxpayer. legislative provisions that prohibit or otherwise interfere with contracting out or insourcing are counterproductive to reducing spending, limiting the size of government, creating private sector jobs. my amendment to strike this provision, which i am proud to offer with congressman justin amash of michigan, does not affect inherently governmental
activities. it allows only for increased private contracting. mr. chairman, the heritage foundation has reported that subjecting federal employee positions which are commercial in nature to a private-public cost comparison will generate on average a 0% cost savings regardless of who wins that competition. our than preventing market competition, it would improve service and lower cost, we should be encouraging agencies to find the best way to deliver services to citizens of the great nation. that's what this amendment does. our nation's unemployment rate stands at .1%. we must allow the private sector the ability to create jobs without an unfair disadvantage and i think we get more results for our money. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment that would ensure cost savings competition in the federal government. congress should be looking to use all the tools it can to help save taxpayer dollars. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back my time.
the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- >> if the gentleman would yield. your amendment is amendment page 78 of the bill? mr. fattah: line 17? mr. sessions: i believe that's correct. mr. fattah: it would seem to me you are eliminating the committee's jeever sight to receive information about what is taking place. is that accurate? is that your intent? relieving the appropriations committee of this information? mr. sessions: i do not believe it will limit the committee at all. it's simply to allow this to take place except where there's inherently governmental policies in place. inherently governmental -- mr. fattah: i thank the gentleman for yielding, i'll take my own time mr. speaker. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. sessions: i want to speak if i -- mr. fattah: i rise in
opposition to the amendment. mr. sessions: i reserve the time i vfment the chair: you can't reserve the time you have. mr. sessions: i yield back. mr. fattah: i'll yield you time at the end. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wolf: it pains me to oppose an amendment from a good friend but this is basically from the way we read it a notification requirement exists so that the congress can track significant chamings in an agency's activities over the course of the entire fiscal year. there isn't any reason to believe, unless i misunderstand this, and if i do, i apologize, that removing the requirement will result in the administration choosing to contract out government function with any greater frequency or scope. it does, though, guarantee that they will execute any existing plan without any congressional oversight, so really, regardless of how you feel about the merits of contracting out, we should be able to agree
that it's in the best institutional interest for the congress to know, basically, it would be like, and i may be wrong, we're giving this authority, saying mr. eric holder, take this and you can do whatever you want to do and do not tell us. and believe me, he would take this and he would not tell us. i write eric holder seven letters, i get back one letter thanking me, quote, each and every -- he quotes each and every date and never answers the question. basically, i think you have to have a requirement of a notification to allow the committee to sort of look at it and see what they were doing. but basically, i think it could be viewed and perhaps i misunderstand the amendment, turning over a much more congressional authority to the executive branch and since we are on the bill dealing with
the justice department, and i've had some really difficult times with eric holder, you think the fast and furious, we try to get information on so many things, if they didn't have to come up before the committee, i think they would be -- they would have unfettered rights to do whatever. based on my understanding of it, i urge a no vote on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. i yield to the gentleman. mr. sessions: i thank the gentleman. the section begins with, none of the funds provided for in this act are for -- that would allow contracts out or privatization -- privatizes any function or activities presently b.ed -- performed by federal government employees which is under section 505, number 6. and it is this number 6 that
contracts out or privatizes any function. no funds can be for contracts or privatization of any function or activities performed by federal employees. now, to me, that's pretty straightforward. i am simply saying that we would amend that and say, we're going to strike that. to where there is nothing in there that says none of these funds provided in the section shall be provided where you can contract out or privatize any function. that's all i'm trying to say. it would be equally a part of any funds in section 505 to say, it could be -- it could be contracted out. mr. fattah: just so we can clarify, section 505 begins on line 4 of section 508, none of these funds, as you stated, it ends on page 79, line three, but lines through but three say
unless abriveed the congress, the house and senate committees on appropriations are notified 15 days in advance. so everything that precedes this says you can't use any of these funds unless you notify us ahead of time and if we don't disapprove. this is -- this whole section, 505, if the gentleman would follow is a requirement to prenotify, for instance in this instance, the republican majority here in the house that an administration official is planning to do something. what you do by taking this out would say if they planned on doing a private contract, they wouldn't have to tell you they wouldn't have to notify chairman wolf or the committee or the staff and there's in way you would know about it. all i'm saying is that this language actually is a notice to our committee of administrative action as delineated on page 78.
so i just think that the purpose of your intent and what you're actually accomplishing are two different things. mr. sessions: what is that line that you are suggesting. mr. fattah: if you go to page 79, the top three lines, right, if approved by congress unless the house and senate committees on appropriation are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogram. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the time of the gentleman from virginia -- the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania has moved to strike the last word and is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i yield to my good friend mr. sessions. mr. sessions: i withdraw my amendment at this time. mr. fattah: i thank the gentleman and i thank the chairman. the chair: the amendment is
withdrawn. the clerk will read. . the clerk: page 79 line 4, section 406, it has been determined be a courtney person who affixes a label made in america insubscription to any product sold or shipped to the united states, the person shall be ineligible to receive a contract with funds available in this act. section 507, the departments of commerce and justice, the national science foundation and the national aeronautics and space administration shall provide to the committees and the senate a quarterly report on the status of balances of appropriations. section 508, any costs incurred by a department under this act resulting from personnel actions shall be absorbed within the total budgetary resources available to such department. section 509, none of the funds shall be available to promote
the sale of tobacco or seek the reduction by any foreign country on restrictions of the marketing of tobacco. any of the funds made available may be used to pay salaries and expenses of the department of justice to obligate more than $720 million. section 511, none of the funds made available will be used to discriminate against the religious belief of students who participate in programs which financial assistance is provided. section 512, none of the fuvends made available may be transferred to any department except to a transfer made by transfer authority provided in this act. section 513, any funds provided provided for e-government initiatives shall be subject to the provisions of section 505. section 514, studies released without adequate disclaimers of
the adequacy of the data. inspectors general of the department of commerce, department of justice, national aeronautics and space administration, national science foundation and the legal services corporation shall conduct audits and shall submit reports to congress on the progress of such audits. section 516, none of the funds may be used by the departments to acquire an information technology system unless head of the entity involved has made an assessment of any associated risk of cyber espionage. section 517, none of the funds shall be used to support the use of torture of any official or contract employee of the united states government. section 518, none of the funds may be expended to pay administrative expenses in connection with requiring an expert license for the export to canada of components of firearms
with a total value not exceeding $500. section 519, no department, agency or instrument atlanta of the united states shall obligate funds to pay administrative expenses of any officer to denny any politics submitted pursuant to 22 u.s.c. 2778 for a permit to import firearms, parts or ammunition. section 520, none of the may be used to include a trade agreement, the text of par gaffe 2 of article 16, print 7 of the united states singapore free trade agreement. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 101 line 5 be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point.
the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 101 line 5, spending reduction account, section 541, the amount by which the applicable allocation of budgetary authority made by the committee is zero dollars. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: -- the chair: would the gentlelady specify which amendment she is speaking of? i understand the gentlelady has two amendments. mr. black: this should be one amendment dealing with the prohibition of funds in the case of a lawsuit against those states that are enforcing
immigration laws. the chair: would the gentlelady specify -- i think we're getting it now. clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. black of tennessee, at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the attorney general to originate or join in any lawsuit that seeks to overturn, enjoin or invalidate, one, oklahoma taxpayer and citizen protection act of 2007, h.b. 1804, which became effective on november 1, 2007. two, missouri house bill 390, first regular session, 2009, ninth general assembly, which became effective on august 28, 2009. three, the support our law
enforcement and safe neighborhoods act which was signed into law in arizona on april 23, 2010. four, the illegal immigration enforcement act, hb 47 that was signed into law in utah. five, indiana 590, 117th general assembly 2011, signed into law on may 10, 2011. sixth, alabama citizen protection act, h.b. 56, which was passed by the alabama state legislature on june 9, 2007. seven, south carolina act which was signed into law on june 27, 2011. eight, the illegal immigration reform and enforcement act of 2011, h.b. 87 which became effective in the state of georgia on july 1, 2011 or nine
an act to amend the indiana code concerning education h.b. 1402 which became effective in the state of indiana on july 1, 2011. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mr. black: i'm here to talk about my amendment that would prohibit the obama administration against filing lawsuits against arizona, alabama and other states. in the last three states, eight states have adopted immigration enforcement measures to address illegal alien population in their states and in response, the department of justice and eric holder have pursued unprecedented lawsuits against these states. mr. speaker, there are over 10 million unauthorized aliens in this country and states must be able to enforce the law if the federal government refuses to. and the states should not have to live in fear of federal retribution for trying to keep
their citizens safe. this amendment would deny the obama administration and eric holder funding for these ridiculous lawsuits and until the supreme court decides the case s.b. 1070, congress must use our power of the purse to stop these political lawsuits and allow states to uphold the law. thank you, and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady cannot reserve her time. gentlelady has to yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fattah: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fattah: i thank the gentlelady for bringing this amendment. the constitution which was written in philadelphia, suggests three branches of government, the executive branch and the legislative branch and the judicial branch. i would oppose an amendment like this in a democratic majority
congress trying to impede a republican administration justice department from acting to, in their belief, represent the legitimate, authentic view of the constitution in a federal matter. to fight in court is one thing. to take away someone's right to have a lawyer, that is to say that the justice department can't go into court on behalf of the executive branch when they feel the constitution is being violated, i think is a bad precedent. for those who are interested in protecting and upholding our constitution to support it, this is a vote that you will regret having on your record as you look back on your service in the congress. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i can appreciate the frustration that
many times we feel as members of congress on actions by the federal government. there are two points i would like to make. one, immigration has been defined as enissue under the jurisdiction of the federal government. no matter what attorney general is in place and what position they take, they take it as a representative of the executive, but also of the people of the united states of america. to highlight attorney general eric holder for fulfilling the responsibilities of an a.g., which is to defend against laws that are discriminatory under federal law, to maintain the integrity of the federal responsibility of certain laws, which happens to be immigration would be, i believe, a -- highlighting or a targeting a
member of the president's cabinet, and i agree with my ranking member, mr. fattah, of any administration for doing their duty. so i would just say that i am empathetic to all of our duties trying to represent our constituency. general holder is representing the american people, but also representing the administration. and pursuing justice accordingly under the law. and i would hope that we would be able to recognize the fruss administration, but to reject the underlying amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: i rise in opposition to this amendment. we have had amendments and even bills on the floor in the past
that were just as misguided and they all take the same form or similar form. either an amendment to say that no funds shall be expended for the justice department to argue for this in court or argue against that in court. that is one form of the amendment and this is one of those. and no funds should be expended or the courts -- no court shall have jurisdiction to consider the appeal in the case of x versus y or no kurt should consider a case on the subject matter of whatever. all of these are wrong and misguided whatever the merits of the specific claim may be, because they are violations of the separation of powers and of the proper functioning of the different branches of government. the justice department must argue for the executive branch's interpretation of the law and for its opinion as to
constitutionality. that's its job. our job is to enact laws. the judiciary's job is to state what the law is. the executive branch's is to enforce the law and the justice department on a nonpolitical basis, not dictated by congress, we don't want to politicize the justice department to argue in defense of the constitution as it sees it. therefore, this amendment is wrong-headed. an amendment to strip the court of the ability to make a decision as to the constitutionality on a given subject would be wrong-headed. regardless of one's feeling on immigration, rrs regardless of what you think the federal government has the sole power of enforcement and state enforcement of immigration laws is preempted of federal law which is one point of view which is the justice department is
arguing or it's not, what the states are arguing, that's for the courts to decide. congress might decide to be very clear and say that this immigration law, whatever it is, does not -- we do not wish to preempt state law, we could say that. but interpreting what we have said if we haven't been clear on it, that's the job of the courts and in arguing that, the administration's point of view of the justice department. we shouldn't be politicizing the justice department or using the power of the purse to say that the justice department cannot argue in a certain case or a certain point of view. to say they can intervene on a case not on side a but on side b and we shouldn't be considering this. we should not pass this amendment. it would pervert the separation of powers and the safeguards of our liberty and i yield back.
the chair: i move tissue for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i wish i didn't have to stand here in support of this amendment but the simple fact is, the federal government's lack of action made us do this. the federal government, through its deliberate inaction for at least the last 15 years has created this problem. the problem of unchecked illegal imgration. from the border states to the heartland from our largest cities to the smallest borrows, every -- boroughs, every american has seen the results of illegal immigration, it takes away jobs from american citizens and legal immigrants. mr. barletta: overcrowded classrooms that make it harder for children to learn, health care systems forced to the brink of bankruptcy because of unreimbursted costs.
victims of crime committed by people who should not even be in the united states. local municipal leaders called out to the federal government and asked for the -- for help. i know because i was one of them. i saw serious problems in my hometown back in 2005. i came here to washington to ask for help. and washington turned its back on me and my citizens. higher up state officials across america called out to the federal government, they cried out for enforcement of existing immigration laws. they asked for tougher border security. elected officials at all levels, sheriffs, mayors, governors, county commissioners, city councilmen, state representatives, all asked for federal help. what have they received? more words, more empty promises, more inflated
statistics. so states acted on their own. they acted to protect their citizens. they acted to protect their budgets. they acted to uphold their constitutional duty to the people that they serve. most importantly, they enacted laws that work in harmony with -- within the existing federal framework to slow the effects of illegal immigration. let me repeat that. they enacted laws that work in harmony within the existing federal framework. in fact, just about a year ago, across the street from this building, the united states supreme court said that the state of arizona has the right to impose penalties on businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens. in upholding that arizona workers act, the supreme court ruled there is a high threshold for striking down a state law
on the grounds that it conflicts with a federal law. as they take effect, these laws are working exactly as intended. within the federally allowed framework. legal immigration is slowing. illegal aliens are self-deporting. and what has been the federal government's response? to file more lawsuits. mar taxpayer funded lawsuits that attempt to punish states for upholding and working within federal laws. the federal government recreates the illegal immigration problem through decades of inaction, lax enforcement and looking the other way. states step in to protect the jobs of their residents, the balance of their budgets and the safety of their residents. then the federal government turns around and sues the states, sues the states, and they use taxpayer dollars to do
it. it's ridiculous. it's unfair. instead of using tax dollars to sue state the department of justice and other branches in this government should start focusing on enforcing existing immigration laws. and until they do, the department of justice should not receive one federal tax dollar to sue states. that's what this amendment does. and i encourage my colleagues to vote yes. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is -- for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i'll try to speak somewhat quickly, being from the state of arizona, having been a county treasurer from arizona and now often finding myself in forums having
to explain a -- or trying to at least in some way figure out how to explain why my federal government, my why -- why my justice department is suing my state and if you think about what we saw last year, when we had the employer sanctions lawsuit, the supreme court ruled in our favor. mr. schweikert: we were at the supreme court a few weeks ago, suing our state again. one of the explanations of why does a state like arizona stand up and have to do these types of laws, understand what you've done to my county, what you've done to my state in education, incarceration and health care. if we were having the debate right now of how the federal government was going to step up and do its job and reimburse the citizens of arizona, for what was a federal cost that -- at their failure, maybe we wouldn't be standing here supporting the gentlewoman's amendment.
but i don't see that happening in this body. so in that case, let arizona, let states stand up and defend themselves by, in our case, enforcing the actual federal law. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i find this argument very interesting, people are casting blame and aspersions, we're different from all our state the federal government is one thing and the states are different. i have an amendment in a moment which would prohibit the federal government from enforcing laws on legal use of marijuana in those states for medical purposes. exact same argument. mr. farr: if you're going to make the argument that we're only going to be selective, we're going to tell the justice department that in immigration laws, we're going to prohibit you from enforcing federal
provisions and turn around and yet allow you to enforce federal provisions against states that have legally in their own rights, and law enforcement is in support of them, to have medical marijuana, it seems very inconsistent. it seems very inconsistent to say, what about the states that have taken a different approach and allow undumonted folks to have a driver's license? many states have aloud that. federal government doesn't go in and say you can't do that. what about the states that allow undumonted children graduating from high school with great grades and getting accepted to colleges to have access to scholarships? called the dream act. states have dream acts. the federal government does not. it seems to me that this argument is just choose your blame and go after the justice department. i hope the people who vote for this amendment if that's what they want to do, will vote for the amendment that restricts the federal government from enforcing state-enacted medical
marijuana laws. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, the first coin minted in the republic of mexico contained the motto liberty and law. we understand in this country, there can be no liberty without law, fundamental to that is law enforcement. this is a law enforcement issue. it show house utterly out of touch the democrat minority is with the neigh's concern with the lack of law enforcement at our border. mr. culberson: my good friend from arizona, the county treasurer from maricopa county in arizona, pointed out you experienced costs to your local taxpayers of $1.3 billion a year because of the cost of undumonted illegal ail yeps in maricopa county. in my work on the homeland security appropriations subcommittee, i've discovered
that the federal government is only prosecuting about 15% of the illegal aliens entering the country in the tucson sector system of 85% of those that they even catch are released. and either return voluntarily across the border so they come right back, and there's wildly different levels of enforcement up and down the border. the people of the united states, all of us, particularly in the state of texas, which i'm proud to represent, the importance of a healthy relationship with mexico. the importance of a guest worker program that allows people to come and go freely with our number two trading partner in the world, canada is our number one trading partner, mexico is our number two trading partner. we need a healthy back-and-forth relationship with our friend in mexico. the only way to do that is to have the laws enforced equally and fairly as to everyone. there is no liberty without law enforcement. and it is the first responsibility of our
constituent officials to enforce the law. we know under the constitution that the police powers are reserved to the states under the 10th amendment because the founders understood that the local sheriff the governor, the state police, were primarily responsible for protecting the lives and property of the people of their state and community. and how many times does it happen, every day, that a bank robber is arrested or a money launderer is arrested by state police or a county sheriff and then because there are federal charges involved, they the local prosecutor hands the individual over to federal pro. the -- entering the country illegally, crossing the border is a federal violation, those individuals are often picked up by state or local police who work every day arm in arm with federal law enforcement authorities to protect lives and property of the people of america. this is a no-brainer. local and state law enforcement
authorities do it every day and enforcing the law is fundamental to who we are as a nation. because as the republic of mexico said in the first coin they ever minted, liberty and law. it's fundamental to who we are as americans and if we're going to restore the healthy relationship that we've always enjoyed with the people of mexico, it begins with secure borders and uniform, equal enforcement of the law and ensuring that people who come here do so legally, properly, so we know who you are, how long you're going to stay, when you're going home that you're not accessing government benefits and costing the people of maricopa county or the people of the united states money we simply cannot aid ford, as generous as we are, we are out of money this nation is living on borrowed income that our kids and grandchildren will have to pay off, it's unacceptable, and this new constitutional conservative majority in the house is determined to see the budget balanced, our laws enforced,
our borders secured, and this nation of laws, the greatest democracy ever in the history of the world, returned to the constitutional set of principles on which it was founded, and that begins with liberty and law, which this amendment so wisely attempts to restore and i strongly support the amendment and urge its adoption. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question -- for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized, the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i hope both sides consider the fact of what's happened over the last year or two. the fact is that this amendment is here before us because we have an extraordinary situation that's happened in certain local communities and states. where the federal government has actually intervened and filed a lawsuit based on the fact that the administration felt that local communities being involved in the
enforcement of federal immigration law would somehow encroach on the ability of the federal government to enforce the law. mr. bilbray: when in fact if you read their statement against a state like arizona, the encroachment was not because they were enforcing some new law or some off-the-wall approach but the fact that they were enforcing the law. and in fact, in the case of arizona, it said that arizona enforcing immigration law infringed on the executive branch's ability or prerogative not to enforce the law at any time the executive branch chooses. now i think as legislators, democrats and republicans, most importantly, as americans, we need to stand up for the fact, the executive branch is here to enforce the law. not to pick which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore. we make the laws, mr. chairman,
not the white house. we make the laws that the white house is supposed to be enforcing. but sadly, we have seen in the last few years the executive branch claiming the right to choose which laws to enforce and which not. in the arizona case, they specifically stated that they choose not to enforce the law, thus arizona enforcing the law is some kind of encroachment on the exec tiff prerogative that you and i, democrats an republicans, americans across the country who believe in separation of powers should stand up and say, executive, you do not have the power to legislate from the white house. that's our job. you do not have the authority to pick and choose what laws you enforcement we all remember the police officer who says, sir, i do not make the laws, i just enforce them. . all we're asking the executive branch understand they
are not here to choose which laws are honorable and appropriate. those are our per rogtive. and it is not the executive's right to use taxpayer's money for implementation of laws that this body and bodies before us and the enforcement of those federal laws are an essential point not just to immigration point but the entire concept that this republic was founded on and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield my time to my colleague. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: i yield to the gentleman. mr. fattah: the constitution may be an inconvenient thing but it
is the basis of all of our laws. this is an appropriations bill. this amendment, no matter the result, is not going to be in this bill and this bill has the president's signature. this is the beginning of a whole set of amendments having nothing to do with how much money we are going to spend but various political passions. most, if not all of them, are going to be stripped from this bill and we are going to debate these things that are not going to be part of the bill as it finally becomes the law of the land. so i'm going to using all of this time. i thank my col for their comments. but the truth of the matter is, this is an appropriations bill and these matters will get settled in some other way and i thank the gentlelady for offering an amendment. it does violate the constution's
-- constitution's separation of power. and thank you, and i yield back the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk -- >> ask for a recorded vote on the last amendment. the chair: the gentleman's request is not timely. mr. fattah: let me thank you for the ruling. choirment would the gentlelady
from -- the chair: would the gentlelady clarify which amendment she is offering. ms. jackson lee: jackson 381. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following section, the amounts otherwise provided by this act for the department of justice are revised by reducing the amount -- ms. jackson lee: i skr unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman and ranking member of this committee. this is a difficult hurdle and a difficult task, but i do believe that this is an amendment that can draw bipartisan concern.
and i say that because all of us have daughters, wives and sisters. this amendment deals with the debbie smith d.n.a. backlog grant that my colleague from new york and many of us co-sponsored and so authorized to the judiciary committee. the amendment seeks to restore $34 million to the backlog of rape kit tests that are plaguing the justice system across america. we go back more than a decade and new york city reported having 17,000 untested rape kits. in 2004, the department of justice indicated there was a backlog of hundreds of thousands of untested d.n.a. kits. this is the only way that law enforcement can ensure that the cases are prosecuted and the
right person is prosecuted. this is the only way women who have been violated and sexually abused can have their day in court. does -- as anyone dealt with a victim of rape and having sit on the board of one of our women's community centers, i know the stories they have told. and we have seen rapes increase among our younger women, teenagers and even though during the bush administration and we supported it, there was an influx of dollars to the advancing justice account. we are still seeing thousands of backs -- backlog of cases. in my own city of houston, it has been acknowledged in san antonio, dallas and houston that cities across the state of texas had acknowledged significant backlog of untested rape kits to
their police storage facilities. at least 4,000 kits in houston, 16,000 in dallas and san antonio. these are only cities in one state. and so, mr. chairman, i believe the ability to make the added $34 million just for the simple action of justice to millions of women that of yet unaccounted for or to be able to move the backlog, which, mr. chairman, and to my colleagues, has not even been assessed. the reason why our numbers are as low as people might assume they are -- and i do not believe 17,000 or 22,000 are low, is because the records of the individual jurisdictions are not kept. and so these dollars would help to access additional resources
directly pointed toward the backlog. i know that a lot of work was done, but the grant program under this bill, under d.o.j., as i indicate i had -- indicated is down. this simply tries to close the gap on the hurt and harm that has been done to those who suffered a violent rape. remember, justice delayed is justice denied. a rape kit that is now in storage containers around the nation because law enforcement doesn't have the resources at the local level to pierce the backlog means that prosecutors are not able to prosecute the cases and women remain without justice. women have been brutalized, women who are suffering the devastation of rape, many of
whom suffer with the, if you will, the devastation of that act for many, many years. and many of us know that many women ask the question, was it their fault. we move beyond that. but i believe this amendment would at least provide the necessary resources in order to provide the overcoming of this terrible backlog. my colleagues, please help us, please help us render justice and provide for the solving or the piercing of the backlog of rape kits that have not been tested throughout the nation. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: we are at the administration's request, $125
million for d.n.a. $117 million for the d.n.a. backlog. it is a very important, the debey smith backlog program, provides local governments to conduct d.n.a. analysis. we are at the administration's request and what this would do, it would cut from a.t.f. $34 million. it would require the risk of a number of a.t.f. employees and impact on the violent crime impact team in dozens of cities. the foundation of violent crime impact program is targeting and disruption the arrest and prosecution of the worst of the worst criminals possible. so we have met the administration's request. we are at $125 million.
it is an important program. there will be $117 million for the d.n.a. backlog and we have met their request and now to devastate the a.t.f. would do so and since we have met the request -- sure, i yield. ms. jackson lee: i appreciate the work of this committee and it's a committee that tracks the judiciary committee and supporter of the work of the a.t.f. for many years. they have $1 billion. their work is important but we are only asking for $34 million because the backlog has not been assessed and i appreciate the $125 million. my understanding is that we are below the mark. but the point i want to make is that there are back logs that have not been documented across america. it is far exceeding the $125
million i ask to take $34 million out of the $1 billion out of a.t.f. since the bush administration, we haven't been able to get through the backlog. mr. wolf: we have fully funded this and this would require a reduction of a.t.f. and salaries and expenses and this would result in a loss of 268 a.t.f. personnel including 111 agents. more than 4% staffing. we are at the amount. you have my commitment. we'll fight to make sure we will stay at the amount. i don't know where the senate is on this. but to go above what the administration asks and to devastate the a.t.f. would not be a good idea. i'm committed to the program but
we are at the level and i don't think we should go higher and devastate the a.t.f. and bring about reductions particularly in the roles that a.t.f. does. ms. jackson lee: may i inquire of one more question. mr. wolf, what can we do -- we are at the what the mark is again. i'm looking at different numbers and you are the chairman and i see a shortchange but this is attempting to respond to the rape kits in jurisdictions that have not been accounted. mr. wolf: i completely agree with you. and if there is any additional allocation and we can go, we will. but we are at the request and i don't think we can now devastate the a.t.f. i completely agree with you. and adam schiff on the committee, he has been a strong advocate of this as has the chairman.
but this is not a good amendment. but the program is good and we'll continue and if we get a better allocation if things happen, we will be very, very sympathetic to it. but based on the fact that we have met the administration level, $117 million for the d.n.a. backlog, i don't want to devastate the a.t.f. and i urge a no vote. mr. fattah: would the gentlelady withdraws the amendment, we think we met what it needed to make sure these kits are analyzed and if that's not the case we could revisit it. the chairman and i will be glad to work with you to make sure this is done because as he said, we agree that this is vitally needed and met the request as needed. ms. jackson lee: if the gentleman would yield. the chair: the gentleman from virginia controls the time.
the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fattah: i rise to strike the last word and yield to the gentlelady. ms. jackson lee: to reinforce the fact that there are rape kits that are unaccounted for because there isn't any data kept. i'm willing to work with the chairman and ranking member to determine how we can move in the next step. i do tell you and i do acknowledge that we are doing the work, but we don't have enough money to do all the work we need to bring justice to women across this nation. i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. fattah: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee rise?
. mrs. black busch: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will reminority amendment. the clerk: each amendment made available other than by a provision of law is reduced by 1%. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for five minutes on her amendment. mrs. blackburn: i thank you for the recognition. i bring this amendment forward tonight just as i do every single year for these appropriations bills because it is so important that we get the out-of-control spending here in washington, d.c., under control. we all know that at this point in time we are borrowing 40 cents of every single dollar that we spend. and as we look at this appropriations bill that is before us, we're talking about another $51.1 billion. so the amendment tonight makes
a 1% across-the-board haircut. it would be $511 million. i know all of the arguments, since i've been doing these, since i came to congress, i know all the arguments that i'm going to have. this is a carefully crafted bill. we have worked diligently on this bill. we have sought to get the costs down in these appropriations. and i truly appreciate the diligence that goes into this but i have to tell you, on behalf of the men and women that i represent, the mom and pop stores in my district which are primarily run by moms at this point in time, on behalf of so many of our small farms, our realtors, who are all cutting back more than 1%, more than 10%, many have revenues that are off 25% or 30%, we need to require the bureaucracy
to get in behind here and cut another penny. it should be done for our children and our grandchildren, indeed, if you want to look at what is happening to them, the share of the national debt for my two grandsons is $50,000 each. that is the burden that we are placing on them because we will not cut a little further. we will not reduce what the bureaucracy has to spend. we are not making the requirements of them that our companies and businesses and stores are having to make of the work that they do every single day. we all know that across-the-board spending cuts work, we've seen them work in our states, we saw it work in tennessee when a democrat governor went in and cut not 1% but 9% across the board.
this is what you do when you want to get your spending under control. it's what we as a body should do to prevent d.o.j. activism. because reining that in and preserving our constitution is priceless. it is a step that we need to take and do that heavy lift. it is our job to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money. it is our job to make certain that we stop borrowing money and spending money that we don't have for programs that many of you are constituents do not want and certainly our children and grandchildren do not want. it is time for us to make additional cuts into this budget so i offer again the 1% across-the-board cut. it will make a $511 million
reduction to the spending in this appropriation and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i appreciate what the gentlelady said. frankly, what we should do here is, i'll take the amendment tonight and support it and we can reform social security. i mean, we gave jimmy buffett and warren buffett a big break on social security with the payroll tax. we bankrupt the social security system, so if there's an amendment, i'll take the amendment. if you want to take an amendment tonight, i'll take it to close the loophole. 2010, everyone here who paid their taxes paid more taxes than g.e. more taxes than g.e. they filed 57,000 pages of tax reform and they were one of the highest tax payers in china. you've got a g.e. tax paying
amendment, i'll take it tonight. but every dollar is not the same. let's cut eric holder more than we caught director mueller. let's cut some climate issue over at noaa where nobody knows more than we cut cyberterrorism. let's cut something else rather than cutting the v.a. backlog to take it across the board, that's just not a good idea. across-the-board cuts, i think the gentlelady had -- it really does impact the work on the bill. it says $1 in one agency is just as dispenseable as any other agency. i agree we've got to do everything we can. i was one of the people here, i support simpson-bowles. i never signed a grover norquist tax pledge. i want to do whatever we can to deal with this issue. i want to put everything on the table. but now we're going through the appropriations process now and
to go across the board, f.b.i. and eric holder, i'd take $2 from eric holder and give $2 to director mueller but not go across the board. i urge a no vote on the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mips. >> i want to commend mr. wolf for what he said. mr. dicks: i agree with him, i think it's a violation of our oath of office to do as he suggested. i hope we vote this down. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise to a pose -- to oppose the amendment. mr. engel: when you have an across-the-board cut, it sounds
good. we've been many months putting this bill together but what's interesting is that every time you speak about an across-the-board cut, people get excited and say, that sounds good but these days those cuts don't hold the same strength they used to hold in the past because in the past, there were times, and i was part of it and so were many people on that side, when we felt we had to go some accounts. mr. serrano: so one could argue that a 1% or 2% or whatever% cut taking place made sense. but it's interesting to note now, and i wonder how many people would present these amendments know, these budgets, these bills that come before you, have been cut dramatically already. last year, this year, they've been cut dramatically. the allocations to the subcommittee to put together these bills not the allocations of the past. there isn't a single bill on the floor, perhaps defense, the
only exception, that is really growing the budget. on the contrary, it's a cut and a cut and a cut. so the big er question is, at what point does it end? at what point do we feel that we don't need -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. serrano: not at this moment. at what point do we feel we don't need a government, we don't need a budget. will zero be satisfactory to people who want a cut? zero, not spend a single penny in the federal government? this bill as presented by mr. fattah, by chairman wolf, by the leaders of this ethis committee is not a bloated bill. it is a streamlined bill. so it's easy to stand up and say another 1%, another 3%, another 5%, but where does it end? at what point do we say that we have a responsibility to fund a government understanding what people are living thru and understanding what we must do
for the american people? we can't destroy every agency and that's what these cuts do. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> we have -- the chair: does the gentleman move to strike the last word? mr. fattah: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i want the house to be aware this would be a cut inform f.b.i. budget of close to $100 million. that this would be a cut to the d.e.a. we just had a major incident with the federal government and law enforcement agencies are working on right now a mother and three children from tennessee who, there's been murder and kidnapping, they're trying to track these people down, the idea that cutting a dozen agents doesn't affect our ability to apprehend criminals or protect the public i think would be malfeasance on the house to just pass an
across-the-board cut. if you want to cut an amount of money, examine where you're going to cut it out. it's very easy to come and just slash across the board. it is true that we've had lots of hearings. it is true we visited with our law enforcement agencies, i've been out to the training center, met with director mueller, this will be a cut that has an impact. so this is not frivolous and the house appropriations committee has the responsibility of figuring out what needs the nation has that need to be funded. the ways and means committee under our constitution is supposed to figure out how to pay for it. i don't hear anyone running to the floor asking for an across-the-board tax increase, because they see that as being onerous but to cut f.b.i. agents who are in the pursuit, hot pursuit of criminals, we think that's fine. init's wrong, i ask that we oppose this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields
back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. blackburn: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to request a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black. the chair: is there objection? without objection, recorded vote is requested on the amendment offered by mrs. black of tennessee. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, i think
it's number 101. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this act other than an amount required to be appropriated or otherwise made available by a provision of law, an amount made available under the heading united states marshals service, an amount made available under the heading, federal bureau of investigation or an amount made available under the heading national err naughtic and space administration is hereby reduced by 12.2%. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is reck nighed for five minutes on his amendment. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. i listened very intently to the debate on the last amendment and we have an amendment that actually cuts more than just merchandise blackburn's 1%.
i listened very carefully to what my dear friend, who i have the utmost respect for from virginia was saying, and i do have a tremendous amount of respect for him and i hope with my amendment his blood pressure won't go up. anyway, this is very straightforward amendment. it would simply reduce the overall spending for much of the underlying bill by 12.5 -- by 12.2%. it's no secret that we as a nation are facing an economic emergency. entitlement spend regular mains out of control. discretionary spending continues to deprow. should the president's health care plan, god forbid, be upheld by the supreme court, we could be facing the largest expansion of federal government spending in recent history and the greatest attack upon our freedom. while the budget passed by the house last month would rein in government spending, it would take decades for it to be balanced. mr. chairman, we don't have decades to wait around for this
budget which is far better than the president's request to right our fiscal ship. during the budget debate, 135 members joined me in supporting the republican study committee's budget substitute which prioritized spending in such a way that it would have balanced in just five years. i'm not sure we have five years, mr. chairman. but the republican study committee's budget would balance in five years. . this is facing the tough choice that must be made to get our nation back on the right track fiscally. this view isn't for the faint of heart. it would have reduced the allocations relative to those seen in the underlying bill by
24.4%. my amendment is met to be a compromised and it is a halfway point between the level approved by the house-passed budget, which is used in the underlying bill and the level recommended by the r.s.c. supported by over 100 members of this body. my amendment would also exempt the u.s. marshals service and exempt the f.b.i. and nasa and allow these agencies to continue to further our national security objectives. it is long past time to get serious about our fiscal situation. and my amendment would be a profound step toward getting federal spending under control. i urge support for my amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment.
the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: it would -- this would be great news for the prisoners in prison, because it would cut the prison system by $600 million and we would have to let a lot of people out of prisons. i commend the gentleman, he has been consistent throughout the night. this would be an impact on d.e.a. in the range of $200 million when we think of the drugs coming into the country. while i thank the gentleman's compromise taking 25% to half i urge a no vote. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fattah: i move to strike the last word. as we cut 12% of the weather satellite budget, how would the satellite actually function with 12% less of its capacity? we have in georgia, which the
gentleman is from and for many of our other states, we have had the most severe weather that the country has ever seen over the last 20 months. we have had more billion-dollar-plus incidents than we ever had and forecasting through our satellite systems that we are launching through the weather service, we actually save lives and money by being able to delineate where the storms, tornadoes or hurricanes are going to hit and it takes time to aevacuate people and the like. his cuts to the national weather service under this approach, especially when exempting certain agencies would have a disproportionate nature effect and for farmers and others it would be problematic in our economy and would threaten lives. i would reject this amendment.
i thank the gentleman for his offering. i hope the house has wisdom to also reject it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. ms. jackson lee: i intended to offer an amendment regarding the civil rights division and recognizing the structure of the amendment, i chose to raise a point of concern as i did with the date rape and i look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member particularly on the date rape backlog that i
believe are epidemic across america. but in looking at the appropriations bill, i noticed $40 million, 4% less than requested for certain areas in the justice department which would include the solicitor general, tax division, criminal division, civil division, but more importantly civil rights division. it is important to recognize how valuable civil rights are to americans. no matter your political perspective there is always someone raising the point i don't want my civil rights being violated. as i have interacted with the civil rights division particularly as they are engaging in the results of the discrimination in lending and foreclosures, a large responsibility, particularly looking at the impact of subprime mortgages, as they look at the enormity of voting rights
and we have had a siege of attacks with voting i.d. laws passed across america and one would argue there is nothing wrong with voting i.d. laws and you are absolutely right but when they impact minorities in a discriminatory fashion, it is sad that the civil rights division may be limited in funding. in the state of texas, for example, our state law has been ruled invalid under section 5 of the voting rights act because it discriminates against hispanics, african americans and even the elderly based upon the requirement of getting a photo i.d. from the department of public safety. those offices aren't located in many places where communities of color live and therefore, they are disproportionately impacted in preventing them from having the right to vote.
we have gone through many states redistricting and in instances, they have gone before the department of justice and the federal court. so civil rights, i am well reminded that it was the civil rights department of both the kennedy administration and the johnson administration that came to the aid of civil rights leaders and activists particularly in the 1960's, under the johnson administration, on occasion they had to be rescued by the department of justice. and so i raise great concern when we find ourselves in a place where we would cut those funds such that they might impact the rendering of justice. it is well known that we have tough times, but i hope as we make our way through the congress, that we will find that it is important that we ensure that the funding that is
rendered to the particular group of lawyers that come to the defense of civil rights of all americans, that we ensure for the full funding of that particular subset of the division under the department of justice. so my intent would be to add this comment to the record. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. who seeks recognition? who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. southerland of florida. section, none of the funds made available maybe used to implement new limited limited access program as that term is used in 303-a of the fishery and conservation act that are not
already, developed or approved for any fishery under the jurisdiction of the south atlantic, mid-atlantic new england council. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. southerland: this amendment finds for the appropriations act spent on programs otherwise known as shares. ladies and gentlemen, what i'm referring to here is nothing less than a battle to prevent freedom in our oceans. i want to make sure that i'm very clear that our amendment only addresses the new england coast, the south atlantic, the mid-atlantic and the gulf of mexico. i also want to make sure that it is clear that this amendment only deals with new catch limits, not any old programs that are currently in place.
catch shares are no different than any other inside the beltway tactic determined to destroying american freedom. by capping the amount of fish that may be caught annually -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. southerland: yes. mr. dicks: i have been here since that act was enacted. they are done by local councils of fishermen and doesn't come out of washington, d.c. every region of the country has a regional group that they determine what these catch shares should be. this is not an implemented program from washington d.c. the gentleman owes it at five minutes to 11 to give an accurate description of this amendment and this program, which is a program which many people, especially on the west coast, by the way, think is a
good program that protect the fisheries. and i yield back. mr. southerland: to answer your question, while you were here since that act, my family was continuing 200 years of living on the coast on the gulf of mexico. i respect your time here. we were there experiencing the crushing impacts of what -- and by the way, sir, i want to make it very clear -- i want to make it very clear that this amendment does not affect the west coast. i don't think you apparently -- mr. dicks: i know that. mr. southerland: would the gentleman yield to me? >> i'm in support of the gentleman's amendment, would he yield to me? the chair: the gentleman from florida controls the time.
mr. southerland: it is very clear in the bodies of water that i made reference to are an effort by a select group to take away the individual fishing rights of individual citizens and to implement a cap and trade system where fish are traded like a commodity. the only problem, the american people own this natural resource. this is not like a crop where a farmer has planted this in a field. and so i want to be very clear that this does not affect an existing program. it just says that no dollars may be used for new, new programs. and i would ask, mr. speaker, if i could submit for the record this extensive list of organizations and associations that represent tens of thousands of fishermen, commercial, boats for hire as well as individuals and i would like to submit this
for the congressional record. the chair: that request has to be made under general leave. mr. southerland: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: let me read you this letter, because i think it picks up what this program is about so the members understand that this is a program that's going to help the fishermen, not hurt them. we are asking to write your continued support for the ground fish program in the marine fisheries service budget. today, a year after the implementation of catchers in our fishery, things are beginning to improve. we are seeing higher prices for several species and have greater flexibility of when and how we fish. discards are down dramatically. gear innovation is on the rise.
fish managers and others are trying to make this new program work. while the new management system will require ongoing improvement to maximize biological performance, the early trends are positive and we continue the second year of the program, a fundamental challenge confronts us. the high cost of the observers is the subject of deep concern to many of us. other times we will assume most -- more of the costs. we continue to require federal assistance during the transitional phase to help the cost of observers. so here we have a group of people who think this is the program of the future. it is decided upon by a regional council under the act. every region can make decisions that affect the fishery in their area. and in our area of the world, this is highly regarded.
the gentleman from alaska isn't on the floor, but he will tell you the people in alaska on halibut, this has been a great salvation and protecting the lives of the people. they have a share and can do it over a reasonable period of time and adds safety to this program. but the last thing it is is coming out of d.c. this isn't noaa, but the regional council in the gentleman's part of the world in the northeast, on the atlantic coast, off of florida. these regional councils, they are the ones who make the decisions. i talked to our good friends on the other side who know this is being used at the local level. i urge you all, do not buy into this amendment. we should defeat this. and by the way, the gentleman from washington is the chairman of the natural resources
committee. mr. sutherland of florida is a member of that committee. if you have a complaint, why don't you go to your own committee and work on it rather than scoming here and screwing up an appropriations bill where we don't need rider. but go talk to the chairman and you guys sit down and write some laws and see if you can get them passed. . i yield pack my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise in support of my friend and colleague from florida. i represent an island and i respect the letter that was just read but i have to be honest, those that i'm speaking to in my district that have made their living for generations on the water disagree. and i have been contacted by many of my constituents that
have great concerns that this will hamper their ability to earn a living. mr. grimm: i want to add, when we talk about the economy and growing the economy and creating jobs, think about those that have a charter boat and they bring out people from all over that come and vacation and go fishing, think of all the ancillary business that brings, all the hotels, all the restaurants, all the shopping that they do, i think that is also relative. at this time, i'd like to -- i'd like to yield time to the gentleman from massachusetts who has been waiting. >> i thank the gentleman. i strongly support the amendment. mr. frank: the gentleman has the regional split between those who fish and the
councils. in the act of 2006, we said provisions that would provide for these limitations were to be voted on by the people in the fishery. there would have to be a vote of the people in the fishery. what happened was, in washington, they decided that there were areas where they wouldn't get the fishermen to vote for it. maybe on the west coast they would, on the east coast they wouldn't so they invented, washington did, catch share a way to have exactly the same impact as what we have in the bill but without a referendum. we went to court, the judge said, well, you've got a good argument but i have to go with the administrator. if this amendment passes, if the people in the fishery, the fishermen, want to vote for something that will in effect be catch share, hay can but it in effect. if they vote no, it'll be no. the regional councils are not only fishermen, they're appointees, so let's be very clear. if you think the fishermen ought to be able to decide, that's what the law says. catch shares is an invention to
get around the law. if this amendment passes, catch shares will not be around but the law that we passed in 2006 that amounts to -- that allows the fishermen to vote if they want to implement it will still be there. people on the west coast want it, fine. that is what the amendment says. the amendment says you can't have what they call catch shares. if it passes, you go back to the underlying magnusson stevens act you know who amended the bill? not here in the appropriations committee, nims. you will go back to the underlying statute which will say if the people in the fishery want to vote for it, they can, otherwise it doesn't happen. i thank my friend for yielding. mr. grimm: i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting our
fishermen and supporting this amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from maine rise? used to be a long time ago, i think. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pingree: mr. grimm said he lives on an island, i represent an island, i join my colleagues in maine supporting this. i'm sorry to see that think good friend from massachusetts are opposed to this. the fishermen in my state would say this is a law that's working in our state and highly successful this would block the use of catch shares from managing our nation's fisheries by superseding the regional fisheries could be sill propress set up by congress. i live in the heart of a district where people have lost a tremendous amount of fish and are looking for ways to make
sure they have a fisheries industry to pass along to their children and grandchildren. the management system in maine has done that, it allowed innovative fishermen to manage their small businesses in a way that works best for them in their own way of managing it. by having no allocation and the flexibility ofish on their own schedule, which i can tell you is far safer and more profitable, fishermen can enter into contracts with processors and avoid the race to fish improving their bottom line and their safety. it's been proven over and over again. some maine programs have developed co-ops which brings local fish to the tables of local consumers, strengthening our communities while giving fishermen a better price for their catch. it is critical that fishermen are allowed to quse the best management tools for their particular fisheries. catch shares may not be the best shares for every fish i ry but that decision should be
left to the councils, the industry experts and the scientists in regions where the fishing occurs. in order to help our fishermen, we should focus on improving the stock assessments, implementing programs, this amendment would do none of these things, instead it would take a critical management tool out of the toolbox to keep our fishermen on the water. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting fishermen and sticking with the fishermen in the state of maine who have found this highly successful, far more safe for the industry and much more profitable for them. any other argument is just plain wrong. >> would the gentlelady yield in ms. pingree: glad to. >> i have a letter here from the associated fisheries of maine and other groups an they say, dear congress, please don't micromanage our fisheries from washington, d.c. we represent thousands of
hardworking fishing men and women from all over the country who want local fishermen to write the rules governing their fisheries instead of having congress dictate them through an appropriations rider. mr. dicks: through the nation's primary fishing law, congress has given regional fishery management councils made up of fishing industry representatives and others the power to write the rules governing fishing in their area. but in a move that would tie the hands of local fishermen, represent i have steve southerland recently set an a letter to appropriators seeking a rider to the bill that would prohibit the future development and implementation of new catch share programs for any fishery you should the jurisdiction of the fishery management councils in certain regions. such a rider would prevent councils from eliminating demand and control regulations that burden our small businesses, imperil our jobs,
drive up fuel costs and put our lives at greater risk. shame on you. others don't successfully conserve -- that was an edit, by the way. if others don't successfully conserve fish populations. though catch shares have proved successful in commercial fisheries around the world and in the united states, today, fully half the fish caught in u.s. waters are under catch share management. they may not be right for every fishery but that is a determination best made by the councils which have local representation, not legislators in washington, d.c. congress micromanaging federal fisheries through appropriations ride sers big government at its worst. ms. pingree: reclaiming my time. not interested in yielding. the chair: the gentlelady controls the time. ms. pingree: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentlelady has 0 seconds. ms. pingree: to be clear, the catch shares program suits the fishermen of my district, it serves them well, it brings about a tremendous amount more
safety. when they had adcases they had to go out whenever the day was, whatever weather was, with catch shares they can make that determination on their own, get a better price for their fish. if the fishermen were up this late, which i'm confident they're not, and saw congress debating to take away this that's been successful for them they would be shocked and angry and frustrated and down here tomorrow with their boats. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i would like to yield my time to the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, sir. mr. southerland: what's amazing is i always hear stuff that's not true. i was very clear, i was very clear, the letter that my colleague, mr. speaker, read, clearly stated that it would eliminate programs, catch share
programs currently in bodies of water all around america. and that's just not true. that's not what it says my amendment is crystal clear. new catch shares. the new england, mid atlantic, south atlantic and gull of mexico. four bodies of water. i also want to make it very clear that every time that opponents or proponents of catch shares stand up, they want to talk about commercial fishermen and i have commercial fishermen in my district. and i'm concerned about our commercial fishing industry. but i'm also concerned about the individual freedoms and liberties of the american people 57bd the proponents of the catch share program never want to talk about the individual rights and freedoms of the american people. this is a public resource. a natural resource. this is not just for a small select group of commercial fishermen that are backed by
very, very wealthy environmentalists to decide alone. this is an issue that is worthy for the american people to speak on. and this is the people's house. and so i stand here, yes, as a move the people's house, but i also -- as a member of the people's house, but also as someone who has lived on the gulf of mexico as a family for over 200 years. i know what i'm talking about. you quoted something that was untrue, mr. speaker, and i have a problem with that. jeeze. mr. dicks: this was from an east coast group of atlantic fishermen. it wasn't west coast people. i gave the title of the people -- mr. southerland: i reclaim my time. the gentleman mentioned the pacific -- the chair: the gentleman from south carolina criminals the time. >> i yield time to the gentleman from florida.
mr. southerland: i -- >> i reclaim my time and yield it to the gentleman. mr. frank: the gentleman is turning it on its head. standing on your head is dangerous in any circumstances but in the water it's bad for your breathing. what we have in the law are individual transferable quotas. it was written into magnusson stevens and does what catch shares are supposed to do with one difference. the gentleman says washington is micromanaging, it was the national fishery service that twisted the law. the law says they can do this. it allows them to do it subject to a vote of the people in the fishery. i would say to my friend from maine, that may be what they think in maine. i represent the fishing port in the united states that brings in the most money and the people there want to be able to vote for themselves. they do not, as the gentleman from washington identified the regional councils as the voice of the fishermen.
they have a lot of complaints about that, including the intervention. this is the question. it is not whether or not we should have the system that the gentlewoman from maine mentioned, whether or not you should be able to allocate and come together, there's one point at issue here. should the fishermen themselves have to vote for it? in the nag mussson stevens act said you could do any of that if the fishermen voted for it. they didn't like that and and came up with catch shares. all the benefits the gentlewoman from maine claims, everything else that can be done, the difference is the gentleman from washington thinks the councils are fishermen. the councils, in my 20 years of experience, don't represent the fishermen. the fishermen represent the fishermen. it's not whether we allow this kind of allocation and shares which -- it's should it be subject to the vote of the fishermen as the magnusson-stevens act shares or
should it be decided by the council instead of the fishermen? the gentleman's amendment is clear. it would allow those allocations, it would allow any of those things and everything you get with cash shares except it calls them individual quotas and it's subject to the vote of the people in the fisheries. that's the sole subject here of this amendment. should the people in the fisheries be able to vote on it or should the councils be able to do it? i thank the gentleman. >> reclaiming my time. i appreciate the gentleman lending his voice to this debate and i yield back to the gentleman from florida. . mr. southerland: i agree with the gentleman from massachusetts' comments. i want to be very clear. i think that the amendment is crystal clear. and so i just think that all americans -- the chair: time of the gentleman has expired.
for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fattah: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the house will be in order. mr. fattah: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the committee will be in order. mr. fattah: i rise -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the committee will be in order. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fattah: i rise in opposition to this amendment. this amendment affects fisheries under the jurisdiction of noaa as written in the actual amendment in the south atlantic, mid-atlantic, new england, gulf of mexico and prohibits these catch shares and from any funds being used. i believe the catch shares
program have worked well. i think they have had a great deal of social, economic and biological benefits. they deal with the essential challenge here which is overfishing and gives us the dangerous conditions relating to razor fish or the atmosphere. order is useful and done at a local level. our committee is an appropriations committee and not the place for this to be worked out. this is not the hour for it to be worked out. but if the house has to take a vote on this, i think we should understand our responsibilities. and there is a difference between saying it shouldn't be the regional council, and should be the fishermen and no funds of
no arch a saying. i join the gentlelady from maine and join my ranking member from washington state and ask the house and i will be asking members of my caucus to vote no on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise as a representative from the great fishing community, monterey, california. many of you may have heard because it was the sar dean port, the largest in the world and was written about in stein beck's novel "can terry row." no programs to help people out in the 1950's when that closed down --
mr. dicks: it's late at night. the chair: the committee will be in order. i ask members to take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman will suspend. the committee will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. farr: took 50 years to rebuild it as a tourist industry but the sensitivities of the italian and portuguese fishermen are still in that community today. we have a catch share program and people have endorsed it wholeheartedly. let me read what the amendment is, none of the funds available in this act may be used to develop, approve or implement any new limited access privileged program.
doesn't say anything about fishermen's votes, catch shares or anything like that. this is just taking a tool out of the tool box and saying you cannot use it. it hasn't -- there hasn't been a program developed, approved or implemented yet. so why are we trying to say you can't use any of these funds. because that's the way it was worked out in all of these fisheries. we are taking a meat ax to a weak fish, a delicate fish. we are taking a meat ax to a delicate fish and i think the process here in congress is overreaching and prohibiting a local tool to work with local fishermen. they want to be able to have a certainty that they can go out and fish within the quota and don't want have to go out because the season is so short
and have to go out when the storms are high because that's the window and risk their lives. all the fish caught at the same time the price of fish goes down. they have a sustainability. the fishery doesn't get pounded so hard. it can replenish itself. all good things in here that any farmer would tell you is absolutely logical in farming practices. why wouldn't we want to apply that to farming the sea and use this amendment to say that before you think about it or discuss it, we aren't going to allow you to consider it and take the money away from the administration. don't leap before you look. it is not broken. it does not need to be fixed yet. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. southerland.
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes. mr. langevin: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the language included in the f.y. 2013 that strips the justice department's ability to prohibit funding for swimming pools, an
amendment that was discussed earlier this evening. as co-chair of the disabilities caucus and a person who has lived a disability by over 30 years, i'm more surprised some see such language included in an appropriations bill. in 2010, the department of justice issued regulations requiring public and commercial pools be made accessible by a ramp or fixed ramp. this was to break down barriers to recreational barriers. i understand some businesses believe that meeting these new requirements would impose an cost burden and i would like to dispell misunderstandings. the justice department's regulations require existing pool facilities to satisfy the accessibility standard if it is and i quote, readily achievable, which means it is easily
accomplished and able to be carried out without much difficult or expense. this has been the governing legal principle of the a.d.a. that was passed 20 years ago and ensures businesses can determine whether they have the resources to make accessibility improvements rather than requiring a one size fits all approach. individual parties cannot sue to get money damages as a result of noncompliance. so it's also worth pointing out that this is -- a regulation rushed through by anyone in the administration. the board first adopted pool access standards in 2002 and incorporated those standards into its a.d.a. accessibility guidelines in 2004. this -- those same standards to the 2010 regulation at issue and businesses have had 18 months to prepare and get feedback. they were recently granted an
extension to delay implementation to may 21, 2012. i recognize the challenges facing small businesses and i do not want to impose undue regulations on them. however, if the language to strip d.o.j.'s authority is approved, a burden will be borne by people with disabilities by those that run state and local recreation alpha silts. swimming is an activity that provides numerous sourble, and therapeutic benefits and played a crucial role in increased quality of life, including our military service members and disabled veterans who adopt swimming as a means of fitness and empowerment. so many veteran service
organizations have expressed as much opposing this language, iraq and afghan veterans of america, vets first in addition to the national council on independent living, american university centers on disabilities. this encompasses many disability health and veterans groups. i ask unanimous consent to insert hose letters into the record. the chair: that has to be made under general leave. mr. langevin: thank you. mr. chair, this language sets a dangerous precedent for civil rights enforcement and would mock the first time that congress has weakened enforcement of the a.d.a. i ask my colleagues to oppose this language in any final bill that is conferred with the senate. and once you pull at that thread, you risk unraveling of
protections and the most important civil rights bill for people with disabilities as well as that which binds us all together in a higher calling for equal rights for all. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 2 by mr. davis of illinois. amendment by mr. grimm of new york, amendment by mr. johnson of georgia, amendment by mr. flake of arizona, amendment by mr. westmoreland of georgia, amendment by mr. scott of georgia, amendment by mrs. black of tennessee, amendment by mrs. blackburn of tennessee, amendment by mr. broun of georgia and amendment by mr. southerland of georgia. the chair will reduce to two minutes after the first vote in this series. unfinished business is a request
for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 from mr. davis which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. davis of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: the yeas are 99, the nays are 311, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. grimm, on which further proceedings were postponed on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grimm of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the clerk will redesignate the amendment. a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
yeas are 199, the nays are 211. the amendment is not agreed to. the request for a recorded vote on amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, on which further proceedings were post poped on which the ayes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 96, the nays are 314. the amendment is not agreed. -- agreed. to the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes spre pre-vailed by voice vote the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be downed. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 121, the nays are 291, the amendment is not agreed. to the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11
printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. westmoreland of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 165, the nays are 246, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote offered by the gentlewoman from georgia, doctor the gentleman from georgia, mr. austin scot, on which previous proceedings -- further proceed wrgs postponed on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. austin scot of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 122 the nays are 289, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. cloim amendment offered by mrs. black of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 238, the nays are 173, the amendment is agreed. to the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: the yeas are 160, the nays are 251 and the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by mr. broun on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broup of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 105, the nays are 307. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. southerland of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 220, the nays are 191. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes have it. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the
whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5326 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> mr. speaker, i move that we adjourn the house. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house
republican primary voters have chosen their candidate for the united states senate. i congratulate richard mourdock on his victory. i want to see a republican in the white house. i want to see my friend ms. mcconnell have a republican majority in the senate -- mitch mcconnell had a republican majority in the senate. i hope that richard mourdock prevails in the november. i am deeply grateful for the remarkable efforts of thousands of volunteers who devoted countless hours to my campaign. the enthusiasm of good friends and loyal supporters over many months was encouraging. i think my campaign team, who made enormous personal sacrifices and never stopped working hard or seeking a path
service from the indianapolis school board on word. my public service is not concluded. i look forward to what can be achieved in the the senate in the next eight months despite a very difficult national election atmosphere. first among my goals will be passing a good farm bill could save taxpayers billions and gives farmers the best chance to prosper. [applause] i will also use this period to advance of the work of the -- initiative that benefits the united states national security. at the end of my term, i will look forward to new opportunities to serve indiana had to serve our nation. i will embrace projects where i
can deliver the most benefits. i will continue to support the program in any way that i can. i also want to build on my work related to nutrition and energy issues, both locally and globally. i've no regrets about running for reelection. all of us should believe in the inability of standing before the public and asking -- of the nobility of standing before the public and asking for their votes. i still counsel young citizens to consider elective public office and i hope some listening to me tonight will do just that. serving the people of indiana in the united states and it has been the greatest honor of my public life. hoosier's deserve the best representation possible. they deserve legislators who will listen to their entire
spectrum of citizen views and work to achieve consensus. they deserve legislators to go to work speaking about how they can solve problems that matter to the futures. -- hoosiers. i am proud of the initiatives we have undertaken to protect our country. we are experiencing political divisions in our society right now. these divisions have still made progress in critical areas. these divisions are not insurmountable. i believe that people of goodwill, regardless of party, can work together for the benefit of our country. [applause]
furthermore, i remain optimistic about the future of the indiana and the united states of america. the news media and political leaders spend a great deal of time talking about what is broken in our country. to some degree, that is the nature of their business. but we should also have confidence that the unique american experiment is alive and well and our political system still can work. we possess the resources and human talent and energy to sustain our status as the economic envy of the world. our culture is a global reference point for progress
among modern societies. people from all over the world what to come here to study, to live, and to invest. we still enjoyed unprecedented freedoms that billions of people can only dream about. the task before us is to come together as americans and sustain the american dream at home while protecting their security advancing our leadership abroad. i cherished the confidence that each of you have placed in me and i urge you to join me in a determination to continue to serve our country and our state. god bless each one of you and god bless america. [applause]
[cheers and applause] [chanting "mourdock!"] >> i have a feeling because -- i have a feeling that you guys are looking to party tonight. [applause] you know, you get ready for a moment like this and over the last few weeks, i've been trying to anticipate what this would be. i had a tremendous sense of momentum.
i have to say, every time i would start to have that feeling, i would remind myself, this has not been about me. this has been about all of view. -- all of you. [applause] now i get to a totally ad leib. in the excitement of the moment, i left my speech back in my apartment. but that is ok. i've worked a couple of days trying to put together what my thoughts would be. i want to start with something very important. it was formed 42 days ago that about 200 -- it was 442 days ago that about 200 of us
gathered at the arts a garden and we launched this campaign. at the time, we did something that i know shocked a lot of you. it stunned the news media. that is not why we did what we did. we did something that i put before all of you who were there to do as a promise to yourself. i wanted to do it as a vow to myself. what we did that day we would do again may 8, 2012. going toid then, we're do right now. i am going to ask all of you to join me in recognition of the
when i began this campaign, the center was not my enemy. he is not now my enemy, he will never be my enemy. he was simply over the last 15 months, my opponent. as i have told so many people, especially when i've had the chance to talk to young people, this race is not about animosity. it is about ideas. it is about the direction of the republican party. it is about the direction of our country. [applause] i have been asked a lot today by the news media, what symbol does this victory sent to those around the state and across the nation? i think there are two messages that can be found today. number one, hoosier republicans
on what to see the zero republicans in the senate taking more conservative track -- see the republicans in the senate taking a more conservative track. [applause] number two, to those people who are conservatives who for the first time in their lives in the last two or three years decided to step out of their comfort zone and start working, some under the umbrella of the tea party, and other conservative groups, bob -- those people are wondering if they can do the impossible. my friends come tonight, you've done it. -- my friends, tonight, you have done it. [applause]
yes, we did. that is correct. i need to say -- the national media wants to the context of the speech. of course, i will do exactly the opposite. this group of people behind me are absolutely amazing. we began this campaign with my friend gemma as the campaign manager, chris connor came on to do our media, and diane began to organize all of this grass-roots effort. [applause] the first thing we did was put together a group of five field directors around the state of
indiana. you divide 92 counties five ways and each of those people has a lot of area to cover. they covered it tirelessly. somewhere behind me, laura miller, cindy, christine, cher yl johnson. thank you. [applause] and though i should not do this, because there have been so many volunteers, the real hard- core staff over the many months -- i saw her somewhere. where did ashley go? she is our finance director. jennifer has been absolutely vital to us as well. we have helley, j.t., ethan,
marilyn was raised less than a mile from where we are right now. if anyone would have told jurors she would be standing here next to a candidate for the united states senate, she would have never believed it. [laughter] the truth is, this is hard stuff. i did have hundreds of people over the last 15 months come up to me and say, the words that i appreciate more than i will vote for you. i will pray for you. [applause] almost without exception because you've heard me fire those words right back to me, please include
marilyn. thank you to all of you who have been doing that. [applause] tonight, it is time. it is not just a slogan, i do not want to be just a slogan. it is time. we began this campaign with the idea that yes, we wanted to move the senate to a more conservative place. much more than that, we want to move this country to a better place. i began this race knowing the odds would be long, knowing it would be difficult, and i understood that a lot of the pundits one in two games this race mission impossible.
-- wanted to redeem the this race mission impossible. but it became the inevitable conclusion. so many of you came forward to, not to pick up the values that i have. we assure you it -- we share those same values. [applause] we share something more important than a value. we share a dream. ronald reagan said, we have every right to dream great dreams because we are americans. and yet it is all too true that today, across the state, and across this country, there are more and more people who do not think the dream as possible. this candidacy began with the idea that it could play a small part to in helping the united
states senate turned direction to lead this country back to the fulfillment of the greatest dreams of our founders. i cannot give a speech without quoting abraham lincoln. obviously, you know that well. [laughter] he once said this was the one nation on the face of the earth that had as its primary purpose the elevating of all men, the lifting of the artificial weights from the shoulders of all so that all could stand in equal and unfettered chance in the race of life. he said that america was unique because it was at one place where people have the right to rise. for three years, he basically grew up in a lean-to individually became president of the united states. young people wonder if there is a way to rise.
they have a sense of expectations that is not built on what they can do, what they can contribute, but they can offer. they think they have to be helped by others as opposed to having that a fundamental american values of self- reliance. we need, my friends, to get this country back on a course where all can rise and all sense the excitement of the dream that is america. they can rise to any level. [applause] today, we see the obama white house and we see a senate chaired by harry reid that does everything it can, perhaps not intentionally, to turn our
dreams, our great national hope into a nightmare. of the ever-growing government, to make us that western-style -- western european style nation. by the way, did you noticed that yesterday, france elected a socialist? there are those, i am sure, in the administration that were cheering that. we are not gone to stand for that in indiana. [applause] as we gather tonight, some are across this time, the democrats are gathered around mr. donnelly. they're excited that the potential that he is going to bring to this race. he has been close to barack obama for the last several
years. it will not be accepted by the voters of indiana. [applause] let me tell you what we have in washington, d.c., today. we have a nation that is on the brink of bankruptcy. we have the nation that thinks nothing but gloom and doom ahead. they think it can never be turned around. i am here to tell you that it can. why do i think that? i saw another turnaround, it started in the year 2004. indiana was virtually a bankrupt state. gov. daniels keyman and -- came man and turned -- turned into
the best fiscally manage state in the united states of america. [applause] i have been so incredibly proud of rebelos to 15 months to have hoosiers tell me how proud they are to be hoosiers. the kind of leadership mitch daniels has taken to the indiana state house, instead of having the barack obama demagoguery, we need the mitch daniels and the accomplishments. [applause]
we need to see the kind of management that we of bad in the indiana state house applied to the united states capital and that is what i intend to take their. -- there. [applause] the race ahead is going to be hard. it is going to be challenging. i am delighted to tell you the first call i received tonight was from -- to tell me they were going to put the resources and there to make sure --
[cheers and applause] i want to close with this. i hope you understand how much all of your involvement over the last number of months has meant to me. i will tell you that a fellow who got a degree in geology find it hard to believe, too. my business career, those 31 years, prepared me for many things. i never imagined it would be for this. but i found out that it did prepare me. my time and serving with america's greatest governor has prepared me as well. i came under the national spotlight a couple of years ago
and i've been fully vetted and tested by the media. i look forward to working with them. not many candidate say that, but i do. i look forward to working with them because they have a difficult job. that is what i am here to ask you for your help to do again what you have done so relentlessly over the last 15 months. if you can convince your rightness of the the security -- conservative message, if you can let them know that smaller government means greater freedom, if you can convince them that i will fight so that they can keep more of their tax money in their pockets, if you can convince them that smaller government, rolling it back would be a wonderful thing on the national level. [applause]
>> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> into stiff few moments, a hearing on the future of the federal reserve -- in just a few moments, a hearing on the future of the federal reserve. the head of the border patrol testifies on capitol hill on border security. the armed services committee will mark up the 2013 defense authorization bill tomorrow. you can see that live on c- span3 beginning at 10:00. span3 beginning at 10:00.