justice, science and related agencies act, 2012, public law 112-55, is amended. section 106 this esecretary may furner services necessary to support the operation and improvement of space that persons or organizations are authorized to use or occupy in the herbert c. hoover building, washington, d.c., or other buildings. section 107, nothing in this title shall be construed to prevent a grant recipient from deterring child pornography or any other unlawful activity. section 108, the administrator of the national oceanic and atmospheric administration is authorized to use subject to the limits of availabilities and appropriations, for purposes of carrying out the responsibilities of any statute administrated by the national oceanic and atmospheric

administration. section 109, shea shall report to congress on travel to china including the purpose of such travel. it shall be cited as the depth of appropriations act, 2013. title 2, justice. salaries and expenses. $110,322,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. it's gowdy number 1. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. gowdy of south carolina. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gowdy: thank you, madam chair woman. for well over a year now, committees of congress have been trying to answer basic fundamental questions about an ill-conceived, ill-executed firearms operation called fast and furious. a border patrol agent was killed, hundreds of mexican

citizens have been killed, thousands of weapons are unaccounted for and likely, madam chair woman, to be used in future crimes, but the department of justice and the attorney general specifically won't provide documents properly legitimately requested. so i am left but to offer an amendment cutting the department of justice appropriation. madam chairwoman, congress has been too patient, and i understand that for some everything is a political exercise, but surely the department of justice can rise above petty partisan politics and comply with a subpoena. the department of justice, madam chairwoman, expects others to comply with subpoenas, yet, they will not do so themselves. for those watching at home, what would happen to them if they ignored a summons for jury duty? what would happen to them if they ignored a grand jury subpoena? what would happen if the committee of congress demanded

documents and they smarially refused to cooperate? madam chairwoman, they would be sanctioned, fined and jail. department of justice is not just one more agency within the federal government, and the attorney general is not just one more political appointee put in place to advance one agenda or the other. lady justice, madam chairwoman, is blindfolded for a reason. she can see who is in front of her. she just chooses not to. the attorney general's chief law enforcement officer for the united states, and that is a role that is far and beyond politician. -- politicks. citizens -- the department of justice is withholding documents. madam chairwoman, it should not have come to this. there are basic questions that

the people in congress should have the right to have answer. who approved the tactic of gun walking? why was the criminal chief advocating for the tactic of gun walking on february 4, 2011, in mexico which is the very same day a demonstrably false letter was written to united states senator chuck grassley denying the tactic? on the very same day one is advocating for it, a letter was sent on department of justice letterhead denying the tactic. how did it ever get drafted and sent on d.o.j. letterhead? was gun walking alluded to in the wiretapping applications? and if so, who missed it? when the president said he did not approve of fast and furious and neither did eric holder, how did he know it? he said that in march of 2011. these are but five questions in a we do not have the answers to despite one solid year of asking. so, madam chairwoman, this is

not about politicks for me. it's about respecting the rule of law. it's about accountability. it's about acceptance and responsibility. i will not, i cannot stand idly by while oversight of this body is ignored. it is time we do the jobs we swore allegiance to the constitution to do even if others will not. and with that i'll yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: i strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i have had a difficult time of getting answers out of the justice department. many times before the attorney general. we have six or seven letters there and the night before the hearing we get one letter that says in answer to your letter of october 1, october 15, october 28, and so i completely support it. i urge members to support this thing, to send a message. i think it's important for the justice department to respond.

particularly they are the justice department, and so i thank the gentleman for the amendment and urge its support. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: we fund the department of justice to deal with crime, the protection of our country and our citizens. and the crime rate has went down each and every year this administration -- violence crime is down. homicide is down. the department of justice is intertwined in ways with the prevention of terrorist attacks on our homeland and on our citizens and they had an extraordinary record. now, there may be occasions in the house for a committee to do whatever it is they need to do. i know there have been seven

hearings with the attorney general. i know thousands of pages have been turned over. but the last thing we need to be doing is stripping away resources from a department whose responsibility through all of its agencies to protect the people who've elected us. they have responsibility. i was there at the opening of the terrorist screening center in virginia. i've seen the various organizations under the mantle of the department of justice working hand in hand so to make sure that some 300-plus americans are safe. i think it's been an extraordinary job done by attorney general holder. i think that anyone in our country knows that this is a political matter and that what we need to do is our actual work here and our work here is to deal with appropriations, to figure out what the resources are what the department of justice needs to do its work and, yes, there will be a day

for politicks. the first day of -- the first tuesday in november. i oppose this amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is not -- the amendment is agreed to. the chair: does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i'd like to yield to the

gentlelady who wants to offer an amendment, the gentlelady from california. the chair: the gentleman from california. ms. waters: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the reading has not progressed to that paragraph. does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> my amendment at the desk? the chair: no. will the gentleman send his amendment to the desk? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. runyan of new jersey. page 21, line 23, insert reduce by $22,414,000. page 43, line 15, insert increased by $22,418,000.

page 43, line 17, after the dollar amount insert increased by $22,418,000. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. for five minutes. mr. runyan: thank you, mr. chair. my amendment transfers $22.4 million from the general administration fund to the edward byrd memorial justice assistance grant program, bringing the byrne j.a.g. total to $392.42 million, the same as the senate mark. the edward byrne memorial assistance grant program provides valuable services to local police departments all around the united states. these grants help to enhance law enforcement's capabilities to provide funding the local law enforcement agencies throughout improving their office of safety, the equipment, technology and

training. better equipment and trained police officers are a necessity to keep our communities and our constituents safe. this amendment is deficit neutral while increasing funding for support of local law enforcement organizations all over the united states. this is also supported by the fraternal order of police. during tough fiscal times such as these, we must prioritize and ensure we are providing appropriate funding for those frams we need the most. the byrne j.a.g. funding should be appropriated as mentioned in the above in an effort to best serve our constituents and i urge support of my amendment and, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

no one seeking recognition, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i move to strike the last word and i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i thank the ranking member and we rise in opposition because the offsets are ill-advised in terms of the cuts, particularly to the civil rights enforcement office and a number of others. mr. dicks: and $22 million. this is a big-time cut, and this would affect sensitivity of civil rights cases so we urge a no vote. mr. fattah: we request a no vote on the amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. dicks: on this i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 22, line 3. information sharing technology, $33,426,000. administrative review and appeals, including transfer of funds, $313,438,000. office of inspector general, $84,199,000. united states pearl commission, salaries and expenses, $12,772,000. legal activities, salaries and expenses, general legal activities, $863,367,000.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: an amendment offered by ms. waters of california. page 23, line 9, after the dollar amount insert increased by $13,500,000. page 25, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $21,500,000. page 30, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $9 million. page 61, line 13, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $44 million. page 63, line 20, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $38 million. ms. waters: i ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. my amendment to h.r. 5326 would fully fund the department of justice's financial and mortgage fraud enforcement activities as well as the new

residential mortgage-backed securities working group. in announcing this initiative during the state of the union, president obama said that the new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many americans. president obama recognized that additional resources were needed to prosecute crimes against homeowners and mortgage investors. . since the start of the financial crisis in 2008, there have been 3.5 million foreclosures. there was extensive fraud of mortgage loans, these cases were complicated and time consuming. without a coordinated task force with significant resources, the greatest crime in the history of the housing market will go unfinished.

however, so far, the working group is off to a slow start. the working group co-chair, new york attorney general, all but afffirmed my concerns when he essentially admitted to the congressional progressive caucus during a special public forum that the working group does not yet have the resources it needs to establish a robust infrastructure, commensurate with the charge of investigating the 2008 financial crisis. to fund this effort, the increase in the budget for the financial fraud enforcement task force to facilitate an increase in staffing for the working group. however, as noted in the minority views h.r. 5326 only provides a small portion of the

increase that's needed. so i have worked to find additional funds from within the nasa appropriations that i don't anticipate will endanger any programs considering the retirement of space shuttle program and a shift in nasa's priorities, i believe we should use the funds in these accounts to help bring justice to defrauded investors, homeowners and consumers. my amendment pulls from nasa aeronautics, they have a budget of $56.9 -- $569.9 million in appropriations, a fair target since nasa only requested $551 funny 5 million and i'm making up the other portion to neutralize the impact on budgetary outlays by pulling $38 million from nasa's space

operations, $3.9 billion in appropriations. in subtracting from these accounts, my amendment would encrease the f.b.i.'s budget by $9 million, increase d.o.j.'s legal activities appropriation by $13.5 million and increase the appropriations for u.s. attorneys by $21.5 million in an effort to comply with the obama administration's $55 million request. the f.b.i. needs the funding to increase its capacity to investigate financial and mortgage fraud schemes. the requested 40 new agents and four forensic accountants will create two hybrid squads to target the most significant complex financial crimes and remaining resources will be allocated to f.b.i. field offices to increase financial

and mortgage fraud efforts. the criminal division within d.o.j. needs additional resources to prosecute the most significant financial crimes, including mortgage fraud, corporate fraud and sophisticated investment fraud. coordinate multi-district financial crime cases and assist u.s. attorney's offices in financial crime cases with significant money laundering and asset forfeiture components. the civil division in d.o.j. needs funding to expand civil enforcement efforts to obtain recoveries from individuals and companies who violated the terms of federal contracts, loans and subsidies. the civil rights division needs funding to expand civil enforcement efforts, including investigations of predatory lending, discrimination, matters

involving allegations of potentially fraudulent behavior and lastly they need additional resources to expand criminal investigations and prosecution. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. 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 to the amendment. we share the gentlewoman's concern for the important tavens of investigating and prosecuting financial crime, however the bill includes a program increase of $6.6 million to the f.b.i. for this purpose. one of the very few increases included under the justice department. the bill also includes requested resources for the f.b.i. to continue the additional positions provided in fiscal year in 2009 to enhance the investigation of white collar and financial crimes. further, the amendments propose offsets to our problem.

the aviation agency is one of the bright spots in our manufacturer sector. large source of high quality and one of the american industrial sectors. 14 million would be taken out of that. and nasa's aeronautics program develops new cutting-edge technology and makes american airplanes and airspace safer, more efficient, reliable and sustainable. pulling back from our aeronautics program today ensures that we will fail to produce the innovation needed to fuel our exports in the next decade, which will increase america's industry with major national security implications. i'm concerned that the amendment's proposed reduction to nasa's space operations account, which would affect our ability to effectively manage and utilize the $100 billion

space station. we have spent $100 billion on the space station and i think to take this cut out of that would be a mistake. so for all of those reasons, i urge 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. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i did not want to cut the spending for nasa either, but the financial crisis of 2008 from which we are still stuffering cost americans trillions of dollars and more important, it has undermined deeply americans faith that our nation really does believe in the rule of law. that the same law apply to all of us equally. they have not seen anything that justifies a believe that that has happened in this case. what happened in the financial crisis was not a perfect storm

of unforeseeable economic forces, it was a hand that would be hand if anyone would just look. but despite the fact that the compelling evidence of real misconduct, there has not been an investigation and there have not been prosecutions to reassure americans that yes, there is a rule of law and same laws apply to you know matter who your what your station in life is ffment we seriously pursue those claims of fraud, those allegations of fraud, criminal fraud charges, every defendant would have a defense team that would make the o.j. defense team look like a public defender two years out of law school handling 100 of the cases. mr. miller: we would be swamped by the opposition but there is no reason not to pursue the

charges but all the more reason to go forward and pursue criminal fraud to assure americans you do not get a get out of jail free card because you are a rich and powerful person. in contrast, the savings and loan crisis which was nothing compared to the crisis that we are still in, there were 1,000 agents from the f.b.i. who were assigned to investigate. there were a.m. will lawyers to bring the claims and almost 1,000 figures from the persons went to jail the current task force that the president has announced at the state of the union has 50 to 60 lawyers and accountants working on the largest financial crisis in history. since the great depression. the results of this are going to depend upon the kind of

resources that that task force has. it is important that we compensate the people who would be victims of that fraud. and the task force will have the legal power to do that even more important, it will satisfy americans' sense of justice, sense of justice that has been offended that the people who have suffered the most from the financial crisis really were blameless and they do believe there were people who were who were not blameless whose misconduct including criminal misconduct, caused it. we need to satisfy this sense of justice. mr. chairman, i want to satisfy this sense of justice and i support ms. waters' amendment. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: strike the last word. i support the efforts to increase the resources we put

into mortgage fraud and we have about $11 million appropriated in the bill in this regard. we need to find more. i'm opposed to these offsets and i don't think the idea that they won't do damage to the nasa program i think is wrong. it's easy to go after nasa, but this broad agreement that the mortgage fraud that took place as evidenced by the settlement that attorney general holder and attorney generals from dozens and dozens of states that are helping to address some of these problems. we will work together to try to find that and i'm going to oppose this amendment as written. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. seeing no further recognition, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. runyan of new jersey, after the dollar amendment insert reduced by $ million. page 37, line 23, after the dollar amount insert increase by $5 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. runyan: my amendment transfers $5 million department of justice, salaries and expenses, general legal activities to the office of violence against women. the office of violence against women is a resource for battered women in all of our communities. the office provides grants that help to enhance federal, state and local response to sexual

assault, domestic violence, stalking and dating violence as well as providing domestic shelters and services to victims. abused women frequently have no where and no one to turn to. the programs provided by the violence against women act are the only safe haven for many women. these programs must be funded at a level that ensures their vital services can continue. this amendment is deficit neutral while increasing funding during a period of budgetary constraints, we must prioritize the program we need the most. my amendment clearly states that the office of violence against women is a priority. i urge all of my colleagues' support on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. seeing no recognition, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 24, line 11, in addition for reimbursement of expenses associated with processing cases under the national childhood vaccine injury act of 1986, $7 mill 883, 00. anti-division -- antitrust division, united states $1 ,965,000,00.

trustee fund $223,553. fees and expenses of witnesses $270 million. salaries and expenses, community relations service $11,456,000. asset forfeiture fund $20 million. united states marshals services, salaries and expenses $1 billion . construction construction, $10 million. transfer of funds, $1,647,383,000. national security division, salaries and expenses, $90,039,000.

interagency law enforcement, interagency crime and drug enforcement, $521,793,000. federal bureau of investigation, salaries and expenses, $8,185,700,000. construction, $80,982,000. drug enforcement administration, salaries and expenses, $2,04,904,000. bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives, salaries and expenses, $1, 153,345,000. federal prison systems, salaries and expenses, including transfer of funds, $6,820,217,000. buildings and facilities, $90

million. federal prison industries, incorporated, federal prison industries is authorized to make such expenditures to make such contracts and commitments as may be necessary in carrying out the programs set forth in the budget for the current fiscal year, including purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles. limitation on administration expenses, federal prison industries, incorporated, $2,700,000. state and local law enforcement activities, office on violence against women, violence against women prevention and prosecution programs, $415 million. the chair: the clerk will suspend.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- an amendment by mr. peters of michigan. the first amendment by mr. broun of georgia, an amendment by mr. mcclintock of california, an amendment by mr. michaud of maine, an amendment by mr. scalise of louisiana, an amendment by mr. pompeo of kansas, an amendment by mr. quayle of arizona, an amendment by harris of --, the second amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia, an amendment offered by mr. runyan of new jersey. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first

vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. clarke. -- the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. peters of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request of a -- for 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 will be 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: on this vote, the yeas are 141, the nays are 261, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: first amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is order. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. 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 135.

the chair: on this vote, 136 yeas, 70 nays. the amendment is not adopt -- 276 nays, the amendment is not adopted.

come on. the chair: on this vote, 137 yeas, 207 noes, the amendment is not adopt the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment by mr. mcclintock, on which the know prevailed by voice vote.

the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. this will be a two-minute vote. members will record their votes by electronic device. [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, there are 122 yeas, 287 know, the amendment is not adopt. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment from the gentleman from maine, mr. michaud, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. michaud of maine. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in support 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 will be 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 amendment, 189 yeas, 218 noes. the amendment is not adopted. the request is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. scalise of louisiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the refor a recorded vote will rise and be

counted, a sufficient number having arisen, 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 174 and the nays are 233. the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request 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, 129 yeas and 2779 nays. the amendment is not adopted. the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle, on which further proceedings were postponed and nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. quayle of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for 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 147

yeas, 258 nays. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is on the amendment offered by mr. harris on which proceedings were postponed and noes prevailed. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. harris of maryland. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested, those in support of the request for 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, 278 yeas, 199 norks request is adopt -- the amendment is adopt the unfinished business is the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. grimm. 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 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 will be 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, 208 yeas -- the chair: on this vote, the

yeas are 209 this enays are 199. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings for post--- were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: second amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of a record 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 amendment, 159 yeas, 239 nays, the amendment is not adopt the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment by mr. runyan, on

which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. runyan of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support 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: 325 yeas, 81 nays, the amendment is adopted.

the chair: the house will be in order. members will remove their conversations from the floor.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? >> mr. chairman, i would like to engage in a colloquy with chairman wolf, please. the chair: does the gentlelady seek to strike the last word. ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i would like to yield to mr. wolf to a statement . mr. chairman, there has been a dramatic increase in financial and mortgage fraud as a result of the recent economic crisis and additional resources are needed to protect the american people and in fact, justice for them. the f.b.i. is tasked with upholding the criminal laws of the united states but has lilted resources in the areas of mortgage and financial fraud. in 2011, the f.b.i. had approximately 3,000 pending

mortgage fraud investigations compared with roughly just 700 investigations in fiscal year 2005. also, in fiscal 2011, the f.b.i. had more than 2,500 corporate and securities fraud investigations representing a 50% increase since fiscal year 2008, nearly 70% of the pending investigations involving losses exceeding $1 million and according to the department of justice, the average return on investment for one corporate fraud agent was approximately $54 million over the past three years, incredible return on investment. while i support hiring even more agents than the president does, the committee was only able to provide less than half the request. during the appropriations committee markup, the chairman indicated he would be open to finding the necessary funds the president requested to protect the american people from financial and mortgage fraud but the subcommittee's 302-b

allocation prevented him from doing so. i ask the chairman to further elaborate on what was said in committee and inquire if the chairman is open to adding additional support should this bill go to conference. i would yield to the gentleman. mr. wolf: the f.b.i. was one of the agencies in this bill that received funding above its requested level. and i have been a strong proponent of providing the necessary resources for law enforcement resources to protect the american people. the bill includes a program increase of $6.6 million above the current level for agents and support personnel to combat financial fraud. the senate has reported the higher allocation, 781 million. as we go to conference with the senate, the gentlelady can be rest assured we will make sure that the f.b.i. has the resources that they need. ms. kaptur: i claim the

additional time and i thank the chairman very much for trying so hard and urge colleagues to look at the return of investment on one agent exacting justice for the american people, return of $54 million over three years per agent, an amazing figure. we owe so much to them. i thank the chairman so much for his openness and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wolf: i yield to the the gentleman from pennsylvania. the chair: you move to strike the last word? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise to express my deep appreciation to the members of this committee who in their wisdom have the ability to support the concept of veteran treatment courts. mr. kelly: many of our veterans are returning from commitments overseas in not having just two,

three, sometimes four tours of duty. by virtue of the nature of that duty we are seeing an unusually high number of veterans returning with post-traumatic stress syndrome. oftentimes that stress-related activity leads some of those to act out in ways that sometimes cross the laws of our country, someone might get engaged in a fight in a bar. we are seeing veterans are dealing with issues through drug and alcohol addiction. i say this as a former prosecutor in both the county and federal level to appropriately divert these cases to a place where they can be handled with the treatment that the veterans deserve. veterans' treatment courts are an obligation, in my mind, to these returning veterans to

allow us to most effectively deal with the underlying issues that have come as a result of the commitment that they made to our nation by its service. i want to express my deep appreciation to chairman wolf and to the members of the committee for their forward-thinking support and urge the support of all of the members of this body for the appropriation in support of veterans' treatment courts. mr. wolf: i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for bringing the issue of funding for veterans' treatment courts to the subcommittee. we had the honor of welcoming a pennsylvania supreme court justice who testified about the importance of supporting veterans' treatment courts and i thank mr. fattah for being very supportive of this also. mr. yoder was very, very

supportive. is he here? but he spoke out very much for it. i want to thank the gentleman again and i yield back. mr. meehan: i want to take one second to express my appreciation to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fattah, who from the outset was one of the original co-sponsors that helped to bring this concept to this body and i thank him for his support. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? the clerk will read. the clerk: page 41, line 6, office of justice programs, research evaluation and statistics, $112 billion. state and local law enforcement assistance, $962,500,000. the chair: for what purpose does

the gentleman from illinois rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will zelingt the the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. davis of illinois. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. davis: thank you, i rise the awareness of a gradual but persistent scaling back of the second chance funding and urge my colleagues to support my amendment calling for a $10 million increase in 2013 funding. as all of us know, states are facing historic fiscal challenges and being forced to make difficult budget choices. these choices are only made more difficult when prisons are packed to capacity and communities like effective resources for dealing with offenders who return. the number of individuals in

prisons and jails remain unacceptable. as a matter of fact, our country, the united states of america, is the most incarcerated nation on the face of the earth. not only in actual numbers, but also in proportion of population. if current projections continue, state and federal prisons will grow another 13% in the next year adding an additional 192,000 prisoners at a cost of $27.5 billion. in light of these challenges, the need for the second chance act is greater now than ever before. the second chance act is a commonsense response to reduce recidivism and reduce outcomes from people released from prisons, jails and returning to their communities.

research confirms that comprehensive coordinated services can help formerly incarcerated individuals find stable employment and housing, thereby reducing recidivism. last month the equal employment opportunity commission offered guidance on employer's use of arrest and conviction records when making employment decisions. in its guidance, they cited that hiring policies that include blanket exclusions of people with criminal records have a disparity ratio impact and therefore violate title 7 of the 1964 civil rights act. the new rules call for employers to assess applicants on an individual basis rather than excluding everyone with a criminal record through a blanket policy. the new policy also encourages employers to give africans a

chance to explain their criminal record before they are rejected outright and marks a momentous advancement in the employment arena for individuals who have been incarcerated. in addition the second chance grant act are working on improving public safety. the moms and babies program in illinois correction alpha silt, a second chance grant has served 34 women. to date, no program participants have returned to prison, a zero percent recidivism rate. in california, of the 220 participants in their second chance program, 61 have been returned to jail, a recidivism rate of 28%, well below the statewide average of 58%. and at the federal level, re-entry has become a high priority for many of the cabinet

agencies in president obama's administration. the federal interagency re-entry council established by attorney general holder in january of 2011, represents a significant executive branch commitment to coordinated re-entry efforts and advancing re-entry policies. if we don't know anything else, we do know one thing, we know that when individuals return home from jail and prison, if they don't get any help, chances are that 67% or 2/3 of them will have done what we call re-offend within a three-year period of time. those that get help oftentimes do not re-offend and the more help they get, the less they will re-offend thereby proving that the funds work. i urge passage of this

amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. and 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: i strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: i thank congressman davis for his work, i think this is important and i support it completely. i want to put it in the framework of where we are. i rise in opposition to the amendment. the bill represents the best efforts to thoughtfully and effectively fund the important programs under its jurisdiction. i'm an ardent supporter of efforts to improve outcomes for people returning to communities from prisons and jails. the second chance act grants help employment of those with substance abuse, that is why this bill, our bill, provides

$70 million for second chance acts programs. $70 million, which is an incress of $7 million above 2012. and interesting enough, it's $45 million above the amount provided by the bill reported by the senate appropriations committee. the senate appropriations committee had an additional $781 million greater allocation than we had and yet we are $45 million above the am provided. in addition to providing the necessary funds for second chance, the committee recommended significant funding for the scaap program, it provides $165 million for

scaap, below the 2012 million, so scaap was below it and now we're take manager from it. scaap is an important program that azzis states and local governments with the costs of incourse rating undumonted criminal ail yeps. the cost is at a direct result of the federal failure to control illegal immigration. for that reason, we are -- we have an increase of $7 million over 2012, there are not many programs that are higher, but also congressman davis, when you compare us with the senate which had a very high allocation, we are $45 million above the amount provided. i know mr. fattah is a strong supporter of this program too. we can go to conference. but to take $10 million out of scaap now would not be a good idea. i urge a no vote and yield back the plans of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last

word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. scott: i rise in support of mr. davis' amendment. wellock up a higher percentage of our population than ever before and part of it is resid sism, people are locked up, get out and mess up and go back to prison. 2/3 of people released from prison were rearrested within three years, now that's down to 1/2. in my home state, they have enacted additional nearbytives, the rate is down in the 30% range. additional funding for this amendment would be very useful and shows that you can save money and reduce crime. now we need a lot more money than even this amendment would provide. each year, nine million

individuals are leased from jails, over 700,000 reheated -- released from state and federal prisons. they need more assistance than this amendment would do but this amendment is a major step in the right direction. at least 95% of state prisoners will be released at some point in their -- at some point, and they have a myriad of needs which, if unmet, will contribute to the risk of reincourse ration. significant mental health problems, the second chance act can address, substance abuse highly correlated with crime, education, those who do not have adequate education will find themselves back in prison, and employment. those who basically because they don't have the education, have trouble getting jobs, and a felony record exacerbates that problem. the second chance act initiatives go a long way in helping. basic secondary education, vocational training, all --

intense supervision. all contribute to reductions in recidivism. so madam chair, if we are to lower crime rate you can't think of a better investment than this amendment that we're considering today. we can save money and reduce crime and reduce victims, please support the davis amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i rise to support the second chance amendment of mr. davis. i thank him for his long work and the work that he has done with many of us in this congress on this issue. this has been a long journey. i think, if i recollect, it was seven years in the making, congressman davis, before the bill itself was actually

passed. i want to focus on two points. one, i understand the account which this money is coming from, and i make the argument that we have seen sufficient decrease in the number of undumonted aliens coming across the border and we've seen a greater handling of these individuals and frankly, the question is whether these funds should be used, what is a strictly federal issue, which is the control of immigration in this nation. so i would make the argument that this is a -- an appropriate utilization of these funds, these extra funds, that would add to the second chance because, one, it brings it to the president's mark, viewing this through the administration's eyes, but really through the department

of justice's eyes, that the second chance legislation and purpose works. it does work. and i will tl you why it's enormously important. because when i see those individuals who have had an experience in the criminal justice system, one of the things they ask about is, can we go to work? the second chance prepares these individuals for work. it helps them be responsible, contributing to the work force -- responsible contribute crors to the work force, it helps, if you will, shepherd them or give them a road map into the work force. it provides the lifeline to staying out of trouble. every one that you come across says to anyone that will hear them, we want to work. again, the second chance creates the opportunity for them to work. and also, i think it assists

the enforcement guidance on employers' use of arrest and conviction records when making employment decisions. again, we understand that people who run afoul of the law must in essence pay the price. but when they seek to rehabilitate themselves, the second chance legislation has been a lifeline and i myself have had to discuss issues of discrimination against people who have rehabilitated themselves, one case comes to mind, a gentleman who is supporting his family, had been out of trouble and finished with his particular issue for 17 queers. he was still getting the response -- for 17 years, he was still getting the response that they could not hire him because of his arrest and conviction record. the second chance steps in, in a positive manner, gives these people for an -- an opportunity for just that, a second chance. the additional funding, i believe, would be the right

direction to take, make us equal the president's mark, still be fair to the account in which it comes from, allows that account to be preserved but in fact gives the $10 million to help save and rehabilitate how many more lives that really can make america betterism support mr. davis' amendment and the funding for the second chance program. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i rise to strike the last word and i'll be brief. the chair: the gentleman veck niced for five minutes. mr. fattah: early in the career of the gentleman from chicago, i flew to chicago to meet with a whole host of people he had convened, i think the entire country is appreciative and has benefited from the work of danny davis and bobby scot on the second chance act and i was

one of the original co-sponsors, it's a very significant statement, the chairman is right when he says that he's one of the biggest supporters of this effort, there's a confluence of energy around re-entry from the most conservative side of the political spectrum to the most liberal, we all realize that some 90-plus percent of the people incarcerated are coming home and the only question is, are they going to come home in a position not to further victimize and end up being reincarcerated? this is an important effort. this is a program that's probably one of less than a doesen in this building that has gotten an increase in this bill and the senate is significantly low we are a higher allocation. i guess preachers preach to the choir when only the choir shows up at church on sunday but i think the point has been made, the use of the program that we

want to cut the money from is probably not one that we would support at the end of the day because it's also needed but i think the spirit of this amendment will be renected in our deliberations. i thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> i ask for a recorded -- for the yeas an nays on that. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. wolf: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the quelt from illinois will be postponed.

does the gentlewoman seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. ms. wasserman schultz: and move to strike the last word. the chair: the reading has not progressed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 38, line 4, juvenile justice programs, $209,508,000. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for five minutes. for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? ms. wasserman schultz: i have an amendment at the desk. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. wasserman schultz of florida, page 48, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert

reduced by $30 million, increase by $30 million. page 49, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $30 million, increase by $30 million. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise to ask my colleagues support for an amendment to protect our most vulnerable constituents, our children. this bipartisan amendment is a simple one. it says that child victims of sexual predators should not be forced to fight for funding if deep cuts to the department of justice occurs. this fences off $30 million in the missing and exploited children account for internet crimes against children task forces. it ensures that even in a time of painful budget cut, we protect the most precious and vulnerable among us. child pornography trafficking has exploded into a

multi-billion-dollar industry. it's based in the united states and sadly often involves parents or adults the victim knows and trust. the desire for these children can only be supplied by harm manager children. the department of justice said it could identify hundreds of thousands of individuals perpetrating child exploitation online but was investigating only a percentage of them because of a lack of resource. the vast jore of these sexual predators remain at large and their young victims beyond rescue. the congress passed and signed into the law the protect our children act, which provides vital resources for the children's crime task forces.

these are teams of local, state and federal law ens forment who rescue the children and hold perpetrators accountable. they rescue them in realtime, victims like alicia she was sexually assaulted at age 13 by a man who befriended her online and abducted her from her home. he was ve rest cued by the virginia task force. congress is funding this effort at only half its authorization but the law is making a difference so please join congressman shuler, judiciary chairman lamar smith and me in supporting this amendment to give state, local and federal law enforcement the resource they need to protect our most vulnerable. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i support the amendment, we accept the amendment. the internet crimes against children program is one of several programs funded under the missing and exploited

children activities account. this program helps state and local enforcement agencies develop an effective response to cyberenticement and child pornography cases so i commend the gentlelady and we accept it and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fattah: i rise -- the chair: for what purpose does he rise? mr. fattah: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fattah: the first visit i made was to the center for missing and exploited children over in virginia. this is very, very important, that the gentlelady from florida has pointed out, because of the pervasiveness of the internet and the need for more resources. so, the senate bill has a carveout of some $21 million. this would be a carve-out of $30 million. i rise to say that i also support this amendment and i thank the chairman for his agreement. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentlewoman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> madam chair, i rise to move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ellison: madam chair, i had submitted an amendment which i was going to move and withdraw. instead of adding complication, i'll just discuss the amendment that i would have introduced and try to be right to the point. my colleague, raul grijalva, and i, and several members of the congress, are concerned about the impact of the stop, shoot and first law's amendment. that's what we call it. because we're concerned about these shoot-first amendments. this amendment would have encouraged states to repeal shoot-first laws by imposing the

20% penalty on the burn jag grants for states with these laws. the shoot-first laws make our country less safe, undermine our criminal justice system and encourage vigilantism. these laws allow armed individuals to confront unarmed people in public and in some cases, tragic cases, even shoot them, in cases where such a confrontation could have been avoided. 10 years ago state shoot-first laws were basically analed. then groups like the national riffle association and the american legislative exchange council, alec, began promoting first-shoot laws in states around the country. alhe can is an organization that -- alec is an organization that ghostwrites laws for state legislatures who hold a political perspective and their efforts have paid for, by and large, by global corporations that spread in states across the

country. in 2005 alec and n.r.a. convinced florida to pass the first shoot-first law and since then they have convinced 23 more states to enact similar laws. the shoot-first laws are unnecessary. americans already have the right to self-defense, shoot-first laws make it harder for law enforcement to do their job. despite what was a clear case for trial, george martin's statement -- george zimmerman's statement that he had shot in self-defense was enough to prevent prosecution. shoot-first laws make prosecutions harder because they presume that the use of deadly force is reasonable and put the burden of proof on a prosecutor. with shoot-first laws, individually need -- individuals need only claim they believe they were threatened and the only person who can dispute that is the person who was killed. these laws also make our states less safe. after florida enacted its law, a number of justifiable homicide

cases in the state per year increased by three times. while i urge states to repeal these laws, i understand that a point of order lies -- or could have lied against the amendment and therefore i won't offer it in order to have it withdrawn, but i would like to state, madam chair, that these shoot-first laws are not good. i wish we could take an approach , where the federal government would simply enact a -- would actually withhold financial funds until states complied with .08. .08 actually made our country safer on the roads and i think repeal of these shoot-first laws would do the same. i wish i could offer this amendment today but will do it some other time in a more appropriate place and with that i yield back. the chair: the clerk will read.

for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? does the gentleman move to strike the last word? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: madam speaker, i rise to strike the last word and in support of the amendment that's pending. and i would also like to respond to what my colleague from minnesota, congressman ellison, spoke about in terms of the amendment that he was going to offer, which he decided not to offer. but it would have imposed a 20% penalty to burn jag grants for states with shoot-first laws. shoot-first laws, also known as stand your ground laws.

in 2005 florida passed the first state law explicitly expanding an armed person's right to use deadly force against an unarmed person, end quote, anyplace where he has a right to be, end quote. even if the confrontation could be safely avoided. florida's law, like so many similar laws in other states, was the result of collusion by some of the nation's wealthiest corporations, along with the national riffle association, through a secretive organization called the american legislative exchange council or alec. alec promotes model legislation written by its corporate members and disseminated to conservative state lawmakers around the country. in fact, about 60% of all state legislators are members of alec. and the florida stand your

ground law was written by an n.r.a. lobbyist. after the law passed in 2005 the n.r.a. presented the bill to alec's criminal justice task force and boasted that the presentation was well received, that corporations and state legislators on the task force voted unanimously to approve the bill as an alec model. and as a result more guns are being sold. now, 24 states have similar -- now 24 states have similar sweeping laws like florida. membership fees are not public, but reports do show that the n.r.a. was a co-chair of alec's -- was co-chair of alec's recent seminar that they published or that they held and this is a

group that will do anything to help corporate sponsors accomplish their legislative objectives, regardless of the value that it has towards regular citizens. they're just interested in profits. and so alec, along with n.r.a., has supported these shoot to kill laws and there is something that needs to be avoided and so with that i will end my remarks and ask for passage of the pending amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fattah: i rise to strike the last word.

obviously we are dealing with -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: we're dealing with some very sensitive matters in terms of the justice department appropriations and there's an ongoing case somewhat related to , and i think directly related to the spirits of the comment of the last two gentlemen. i don't want to comment on the actual case at hand but i think that there's a great deal of concern in many sections of the country about what the circumstances are under which a shooting and a killing can take place when you have an unarmed teenager. so this is an issue that's being handled in our court of laws. we're a country of laws. and we need to let these -- the judicial process take its appropriate course. but i thank the two gentlemen for offering their points of view and for withdrawing the amendment. thank you. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 49, line 21,

public safety officer benefits, $16,300,000. community-oriented policing services, community-oriented policing services programs, $72,500,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grimm of new york, page 50, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert, increase by $126 million. page 51, line 12, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $126 million. page 65, line 1, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $126 million. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. grimm: thank you, madam chairman. i rise today to offer a truly bipartisan amendment, with my good friends and representatives

pierluisi, king and pascrell. this amendment is to fund the highly successful cops hiring program at the fiscal year 2012 level. this will ensure that we have sufficient police officers on our streets to prevent and to respond to crime and to keep our neighborhoods safe. our local police departments count on the cops' hiring program to help them hire additional officers to combat crime in our local communities and to provide true community policing. the money to fund the cops hiring program comes from reducing in a corresponding amount the appropriation for cross-agency support within nasa. an approach that was adopted by the house in the february, 2011, -- during consideration of that. although we do not in any way oppose the work of nasa that is funded through this offsetting account, we are determined to offer a budget-neutral amendment

and to give the house an opportunity to work for robust funding for cops in an eventual conference with the senate. in this tough economic time, our officers understand the need for sacrifices and for cutbacks. however, during these trying timets, we often see increases -- times, we often see increases in crime. therefore i feel and my colleagues agree that it's essential that law enforcement agencies across the nation have the necessary resources to protect the american people. i encourage strong support for the grimm-pierluisi-king-pascrell amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from puerto rico rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pierluisi: madam chair, along with my colleagues, mr. grimm, the former f.b.i. eath,

mr. pascrell, the co-chair of the law enforcement caucus, and mr. king, the homeland committee, i'm offering this bipartisan amendment to increase funding for the cops hiring program in order to bring such funding in line with fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $166 million. the base bill provides only $40 million for this program, which is clearly not sufficient. $40 million is $122 million below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, over $217 million below the president's request and $175 million below the amount proposed by the senate companion bill. the cops bill was created by title 1 of the violent crime control and law enforcement act of 1994. i was attorney general of puerto rico at the time and i'm proud to have worked with my fellow n.g.'s to help secure passage of that bill.

as someone whose only family has been deeply touched by violent crime, and who has spent countless hours talking with families that have been similarly affected, i am unyielding in my belief that the most solemn dutyy of government is to safeguard its citizens. whether you live in stanton island, south orange or san juan, you deserve to feel safe in your home and your community. the cops program is rooted in this simple premise and has done much to make it a reality. the mission is to enhance the security of our citizens. under the program, it awards grants to state and local law enforcement agencies so they can hire and train police officers, purchase and use new crime fighting technologies and develop now, innovative policing strategies. to date, over $100,000 in cops grants have been awarded to police officers in puerto rico, which have the highest homicide rates in the country.

it's put $34 -- it's put 345 new police officers on puerto rico streets. it's put more teachers in the island's schools and money has been awarded for crime fighting technology. each of my colleagues, no doubt, could cite similar statistic bus even these numbers can't adequately capture the impact cops funding has had in the areas we represent, the numbers of lives saved, the numbers of crimes prevented, these numbers are simply beyond calculation. to increase funding for the cops hiring program by $132 million, our amendment reduces funding for the nasa cross agency support account for the equivalent amount. in fiscal year 2010 cycle, the house in strong bipartisan support, voted 228-203 to adopt

an amendment that followed the same approach. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment which is supported by the international brotherhood of police officers and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: strike the eck sit -- requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment. this is not -- the nasa support -- cross agency support account is not free money. i think they should change the name. it's like dietrich bonhoeffer and cheap grace, it's just

cross-agency support account. why don't we want to do this? nasa will not be table absorb this. it deals with safety, it deals with security and mission success. cybersecurity measures to fend off attacks by china and others while nasa is a civil agencies, much of its degree no -- -- technology has military uses. what does the cross-agency support sneen it doesn't mean anything. yes it does, it's very important with regard to nasa. human space flight safety oversight comes partly out of that. we have learned the hard way on the challenge in the -- on the challenger and columbia tragedies that they are necessary to safety. cuts to this account will hamper nasa's efforts to harm life and property. but hey, let's cut from the

cross agency support account because nobody cares. it does, validation, mission critical software, keeping astronauts and ground rue members safe. this account provides a lot of jobs, i could go on and on. i urge, if you want to kind of find it, maybe you should have gone some other place but to take it out of nasa and put a spear right at nasa's heart, i think that's a mistake. i urge, if you want to -- my father was a philadelphia policeman 21 years, you want a beef with -- want to be for this, fine, you should have found another spot. because the senate with its $781 million, but if you care about nasa, or maybe they don't care about nasa. if you don't care about nasa, i

urge a strong support for this this. if you do care about nasa, i urge you to reject this amendment. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> madam chair, i move to strike se requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pascrell: i rise in support of this amendment of which i'm a co-sponsor of over the last several year, we have watched the majority atment to eliminate and actually eliminate, at least temporarily, the most successful crime fighting program in the last 20 years, the community oriented policing services or cops program. since this program's creation, under president clinton, it has literally put tens of thousands of police on the beat around the nation. and it has promoted sensitive, effective policing across america. the benefits are real. crime rates in every category decreased as a result of this program. and when this program is

gutted, communities feel the effects directly and immediately. the committee should have found the money to keep the cops program strong but evidently they gave it lower importance, which is why we are here with this amendment. last fall, the city of trenton was forced to lay off nearly a third of its uniformed officers, nearly a third. it's been reported our state's capitol now has the same number of police on its rolls as it did in 1932. the city had hoped to soften the blow of the budget-driven layoffs through a cops grant that would have aloud them to hire back at least 18 officers. but unfortunately, because this congress failed to properly fund the cops program, trenton got no money to hire the laid off officers. and the people of trenton are paying the price in a very real way. last year, something on the order of 150 people were shot within the city.

more than wise, way more than twice the previous year. street robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries, up alarm glifment and people in the community tell me these trends are continuing to this day. we need more money to rehire more police, we need it now before more trentonians and other americans lose their lives or suffer injury and property loss. i support nasa. i don't like the offset we're using for this but i -- we can't allow the cops program to wither. i wish the committee had funded this program as it should be funded. with enough money to meet the legitimate needs of trenton and other municipalities around america. every time i talk with law enforcement officials, i ask, how great is the need? how much can you actually do? and every time they tell me, the need vastly exceeds the resources. and with the resources they can do a better job. this past grant cycle, the cops

office received $2 billion in requests for assistance from around the country, $2 billion but they only had about $200 million on hand. that's unacceptable. crime doesn't take a holiday. we need to fully fund the cops program in order to beat back violent crime around america to make cities more livable, make america the place where we all want to live. my hope is that we'll be able to meet that goal during the appropriations conference process because the subcommittee didn't do it. which is why we're here now. this amendment is a step in that direction and i thank my colleague, representative pascrell, representative grimm, representative reichert, who i believe is not here tonight, and the other sponsors for their strong -- who is unable to be here tonight, i mean, for their strong support in this

effort. i yield back any time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. mr. -- i want to thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. you've always been a sensitive person, i don't say this to blow smoke. it's a tough decision when you have to make priorities. we come to the floor to fight for what we believe in. i think you respect that and i'm sure the gentleman from staten island respects that as well and we all do here my good friend from philadelphia. mr. pascrell: we'd like to do all these things and more. but not only did we run out of applications, think about that, people, we said stop, don't apply any longer. we got 11,000 or 12,000 cops

laid off, police officers, in this country. tell me that doesn't have consequences. tell me, what are those consequences? smaller squads, police officers killed in new jersey, killed by two guys on the lam without enough people to look for them. that's not accept nble a society which depends on law and order. you can't talk out of both sides of your mouth about law and order. we need police on the streets. this is about community policing. and i would say to my good friend from virginia, these are two programs that tonight we're speaking about one of them, police, cops program, and the fire act, leader hoyer can tell us about that. but they're two bills that are one -- no other bills are run better in the federal government. i think we would want to duplicate that.

having provided a huge cut in the past, from $166 million down to $40 million, we can't do that with 11,000 or 12,000 police officers laid off. our amendment would restore the program, of course this is really just a drop in the bucket because it only really hires close to 1,000 police officers. we have already laid off 12,000. and a lot of positions have not been filled. there was nobody in it -- there was no one in that position to begin with. so look, the program, the account we're talking about at nasa i think is $2.8 billion this is a small part of it. i would rather do it some other way, mr. chairman, or madam speaker. i would rather do it another way my hometown, laid off 125 police officers. same story in other towns in new jersey. fewer cops on the beat means

more crime on our streets, plain and simple. if i can't come up here and fight for the guys and gals who defend us day in and day out, and if there's an attack, it a natural disaster or man-made disaster therks police and firefighters and e.m.t.'s who will be there long before the federal government. we need to protect them. sure, i'll yield. >> my dad was a policeman in the city of philadelphia. mr. wolf: with my dad, i couldn't say the word cops. because it was a derogatory term. my dad was a policeman, i love my father. when we go to conference, we'll attempt to really deal with this. i think mr. fattah and i agree. nasa is not the police to go. i'm very sympathetic. we're given -- giving a budget, some guys want to take the budget down even more. the republican study committee wants to take it down even

more. some guys would have voted for the republican study committee come down here? listen, i'm committed to do everything we can when we go to conference. the allocation was different. mr. pascrell: reclaiming my time. mr. wolf: i will do everything we can as we go to conference depending on how the allocation is to see what we can really do. mr. pascrell: we can't be dependent on the allocation, we have to fight for the allocation. we have to fight for what we want. i'll yield. mr. wolf: i'll let you conclude your time. mr. pascrell: i want us all to listen on both sides of the aisle. what is dragging down the economy at this point, when you look at it objectively if you try to look at it objectively, is that we have lost between

600,000 and 700,000 public sector jobs. so we are adding private sector jobs, even though we only hadded -- added 116,000 last year, we've got to do better than that to catch up with people coming into the market, and defend and go after those people who want to drop out and become phantoms and then they don't exist at all on the numbers. that doesn't help us either. but we've got to stop this trend down to the bottom. we're losing teachers, police officers, and firefighters at an unprecedented rate. if you think that's going to solve our problems nationally or locally, i don't think that that's the route to go. i yield back. i urge a yes vote on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. wolf: i strike the last word. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognizerd for -- for five minutes. >> i join the chairman in --

mr. fattah: i say there are two things that will happen when this bill becomes the law of the land. there will be additional dollars for cops and nasa won't be cut. i understand the makers of the amendment have to find an offset. it's an offset that won't be acceptable in a time resolution on the bill. but you need an offset to come to the floor, you came to the floor to make a point that needs to be made, which is we need to have, when people call 911, there needs to be a cavalry on the way and not just the hope that there might be some help, so we thank you for bringing the amendment forward. when we finalize this bill, there will be additional dollars -- dollars for the cops program, thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

the gentleman from new york. the gentleman from new york. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 51, line 23. in addition to amounts made available, $50,000 shall be available to the attorney general for official reception. section 202, none of the funds shall be available to pay for an abortion except where the life of the mother would be in danger. section 203, none of the funds shall be used to require any person to perform an abortion. section 204, nothing in the proceeding section shall remove the obligation to provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to receive such service. section 205, not to exceed 5% of

any appropriations for the department, may be transferred between such appropriations but no such appropriations shall be increased by more than 10%. section 206, the attorney general is authorized to extend through september 30, 2014, the demonstration project transferred to the attorney general pursuant to public law 107-296. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized the -- recognized for five minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady. madam chair, over two decades ago the first president bush signed into law the bipartisan and historic americans with disabilities act. i was proud to sponsor that legislation. and have worked over the last 20 years to make sure that it was effective and strengthened.

contained in the bill before us is an unprecedented measure that would significantly erode the justice department's authority to protect access for those with disabilities to swimming pools. now, one might say, access to swimming pools? but i want my colleagues to think about if you have a mobility impairment. if you have some neurological impairment, that swimming is one of the most effective activities in which you can participate to get your motor skills back in an environment that will not allow you to sink. therefore you have an environment in which you can exercise your muscles. so many of you have seen that and know that to be the case. this is an incredibly important accessible facility for those with disabilities. and in any event, those with disabilities ought to have

access certainly to public facilities and we can make it so. now, i'm not going to offer an amendment to strike this language. but i hope, mr. chairman, and, mr. ranking member, that this will be struck. i hope that we will listen to the tens of lets that are i've gotten and you've gotten and i want to ask unanimous consent to include in the record at this time. the chair: the gentleman the gentleman's request will be covered by general leave. mr. hoyer: thank you very much. for many americans with disabilities, swimming pools are an important source of physical activity and emotional comfort. the provisions in question would roll back the justice department's 2010 accessibility regulations, undermining standards for new pool construction and for upgrading of existing facilities. this would constitute a serious setback to americans with disabilities, including many of our veterans, and i want you to

think about this. many of our veterans, wounded while serving in nations overseas. and as all of you know, many of these injuries they've received are to their limbs. again, in a swimming pool, supported by water, it is much -- it facilitating their exercise program -- facilitates their exercise program. this would constitute, as i said, a serious setback. the 2010 accessibility regulation this provision would eliminate do not place an undue burden on pool operators who cannot afford to make their facilities. some of will you remember steve bartlett, member of this congress, mayor of dallas, still in town, a wonderful friend of mine, a conservative republican from texas. he and i spent literally hundreds of hours working on this legislation together. and one of the things we did was to make sure that businesses would know that what they were

asked to do was affordable and that they could do it with relative ease. realizing full well that one can't expect a small business in particular to incur a large expense, notwithstanding the objective is a worthy one. so we had a practical approach to this. and we had language that said, it had to be readily achievable and affordable for the enterprise. certainly we can continue to do that for these facilities which are so important to so many people with disabilities. i hope, mr. chairman, my good friend, mr. wolf, and i want to say, mr. wolf is one of the most conscientious members of this house and one of the most courageous members of this house and he and i have had the opportunity to work together for over three decades on legislation. i hope, mr. chairman, that the house and senate conferees will look carefully at the damage this provision will cause in the

lives of so many americans with disabilities and strike it from the final version. i commend my colleagues who have come here to draw attention to it and i thank them for continues to stand up for those with disabilities, including veterans and their right to equal access and opportunity. when george bush signed in july 26, 1990, the americans with disabilities act, he said it was the most significant civil rights act in over a quarter of a century, since the 1960's. he said it ensured that all individuals would have access to full enjoyment of facilities in this country of opportunity and of freedom. this amendment may be well -intended, but it's its -- its effect would be very detrimental. i urge the chairman and the ranking member and i will certainly be working with my senate colleagues as well in making sure this language is not

in the final bill, because this would be detrimental. and as i remind you once again, so many veterans are coming back in need of this kind of access. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. flake: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. flake: to the gentleman's point, the minority whip, i think all of us want to protect the a.d.a. and the goals of the a.d.a. that's why this amendment was offered. in the committee, to strike this language, what will happen, i think we can all see it, is if this new -- these new regulations are allowed to go into effect at the end of this month, i believe, it will come, there isn't the equipment even available to put it in use. the liability issues are so huge , to have a lift at every pool

and a power source right by the water. and every body of water, if there's a result with 10 pool, 10 lifts, three jacuzzis, three more lifts. if an apartment complex with a small little pool, they still have to do it. municipalities that have public pools have will -- will have to do that as well and too many of them will say, we can't expose ourselves to the cost or the liability and so we'll simply close our pool. what does that do for access for the disabled? whether they be military or anyone else? what good is it if a pool is closed down because the owners simply can't deal with the costs from the liability? i guarantee you if this happens, if this goes into effect, and then if it isn't, then you're just granting waivers based on some kind of spoil system or whether or not they think they're going to pull it. it's just not workable. what we need is a workable regulation, i'm told, by many of

the resort owners that they had already purchased and some already have -- mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. flake: i will for a very brief time. >> is the gentleman aware that if the equipment is not ready, that under the law it is not readily achievable and that the -- and doesn't have to be done at that point and that the d.o.j. has already met with the industry and told them this? mr. flake: it's all well and good to say that, but these -- what these owners will say is the liability comes, as soon as the lawyer comes by and the pool doesn't have it, they're not going to risk having the liability. they're not going to risk doing that. and so you'll have less access because it's simply not ready. having this go into effect less than a month from now, at the end of this month, is simply not reasonable. and what we are about is trying to find a solution that is reasonable and affordable, that way -- that lynn crease accessibility for the disabled.

this doesn't do it. that's why the amendment was offered in the committee as a whole or the committee, to take this back and have something reasonable. all of us want the same goal here. but the regulations as they're put forward are not reasonable. think about that for a minute. a small apartment complex that has a pool open to the public, to impose that kind of cost and liability on them, even if the equipment when it does become available, it's more likely that they will simply shut the pool down because they won't want to deal with that liability. we have resorts in arizona who have had portable lifts available for years and years. some of them have informed us that they've never been asked once or one time in 10 years. there are ways to do this. it's reasonable and prudent to say, you ought to have a portable lift available. but a fixed lift for every body of water? it just is unreasonable and too

costly. so that's why the amendment was offered. that's why the language is in this bill and i would urge that it be retained. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: 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: we had this discussion in full committee, you have on one sided paralyzed veterans association, the blind veterans, all the veterans groups you can imagine. on the other side you have hotel owners who say, look, we either can't afford it or nobody will ever want to use it or we can't get the equipment. what we have in the middle is a set of facts. which is that this regulation has been developed over a long period of time -- process, starting back in 2004. and that if you have a financial hardship and you can't do it, you can waive it. if the equip's not available, it's not achieveble, there's tax credits for it. the issue here really is whether there's enough heart among the

hotel owners to make sure that americans who are disabled have the same opportunity. that's the real question here. so, there's no amendment pending, i just want the house to be clear that one of the reasons why you don't authorize on an appropriation bill is that this is a matter for the judiciary committee, they've held a hearing on it, there's a set of facts that get kind of bottled up when we're dealing with this spending of dollars, there's no reason here for a country as big as ours, as wealthy as ours, to have so little heart and compassion for those who are less fortunate, who are disabled so they can have access as they travel and deal with public accusations -- accommodations. thank you and 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 mississippi seek recognition? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is the chair: the gentleman is recognized for